Notices
Closed Thread
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 252

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

  1. #1 Default Transfer Fees, Market Value and Value for Money Discussion 
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Discussion on transfer fees, value and worth in relation to players performance.

    Overspilled from the Oxlade-Chamberlain thread.
    Last edited by FIOS; 9-11-17 at 16:15. Reason: removed quote
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    55,720
    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.
    That's a fair point. I was looking at it from the perspective of his contract situation. Also given that Salah, a much better player (which is no insult to Oxlade Chamberlain at all) cost the same/less. But I can't claim to be that arsed about the fee given that I like him as a player.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    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.
    So you wouldn't have complained if he'd cost 70m? Or 100m?

    Of course there's such a thing as overspending, don't be absurd.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,343
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    That's a fair point. I was looking at it from the perspective of his contract situation. Also given that Salah, a much better player (which is no insult to Oxlade Chamberlain at all) cost the same/less. But I can't claim to be that arsed about the fee given that I like him as a player.
    Fees have never bothered me.

    If a player contributes and makes us stronger as a unit, then it's money well spent.

    If they don't add anything, then it's money wasted, whether they cost nothing or 50m.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    So you wouldn't have complained if he'd cost 70m? Or 100m?

    Of course there's such a thing as overspending, don't be absurd.
    Wouldn't have complained about what? His performance? How does what a club paid for a player determine how he performs, or determine how I should view his performances?

    I don't judge a player by what we paid for him. I judge a player on how he performs. I haven't once considered the price we paid for Salah when discussing how he has played this year. Or Solanke. Or any of the players we bought. It's irrelevant once youve paid that money. The players either do what you need and want, or they don't. The money you paid for them doesnt make them any better or worse signings.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    Fees have never bothered me.

    If a player contributes and makes us stronger as a unit, then it's money well spent.

    If they don't add anything, then it's money wasted, whether they cost nothing or 50m.
    In addition to the wasted time, energy, missed opportunity of actually signing the right player, etc.

    It's why people saying "he was only x amount, so it's not too bad" is perhaps one of the ignorant and foolish arguments you encounter on here. Like Balotelli was "only 16m" so it was worth a punt. No, just no.

    People use transfer fees as a crutch.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,343
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    In addition to the wasted time, energy, missed opportunity of actually signing the right player, etc.

    It's why people saying "he was only x amount, so it's not too bad" is perhaps one of the ignorant and foolish arguments you encounter on here. Like Balotelli was "only 16m" so it was worth a punt. No, just no.

    People use transfer fees as a crutch.
    I'm not against taking the odd well considered punt...as long as it's in addition to our key targets...not a substitute for one.

    Balotelli wasn't a punt...he was footballs own "magic beans".
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    No such thing as a "x amount of money player". You pay what you pay for the players you want and need. There is no such thing as market value in football. Valuations of players are so wide and varied that it is impossible to determine whether you have value for money or to determine whether this player is market value. Fees are so distorted by the money different clubs have that you cannot possibly look at one club paid for a player to try to gauge whether the player you paid falls in line with what they did. Clubs have have different needs, different urgencies, different financial strengths and packages, etc that it makes it absolutely impossible to compare. Market value just doesnt exist in footy.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by EmreSam View Post
    And when Coutinho and Lallana return from injury, he will rarely play. I don't know why anyone is wasting their time pretending they can justify spending 40m on him. We paid more for Chamberlain than we paid for Salah. It's not his fault but that's what he will obviously be judged on
    Why would you judge a player on what we spent?

    Why does an arbitrary figure determine your view of someone? It makes absolutely no sense. He's no better or worse based on a price tag, is he?

    Expectations based on a transfer fee is one of the most ridiculous aspects of football. It's time to leave it behind because the money involved entirely warps and distorts people's view of players. Judge a player on how he plays, what he does in the field, what he offers the team and manager. Forget nonsense caveats like "for x amount of money he should be..." and focus on what players actually do.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    9,460
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Why would you judge a player on what we spent?

    Why does an arbitrary figure determine your view of someone? It makes absolutely no sense. He's no better or worse based on a price tag, is he?

    Expectations based on a transfer fee is one of the most ridiculous aspects of football. It's time to leave it behind because the money involved entirely warps and distorts people's view of players. Judge a player on how he plays, what he does in the field, what he offers the team and manager. Forget nonsense caveats like "for x amount of money he should be..." and focus on what players actually do.
    I agree, if you buy a player for 3m and he's useless thats money wasted and if you buy a player at 30m and he helps your team become better or more successful then it's money well spent.
    Eagle Face Moron
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyMc9 View Post
    I agree, if you buy a player for 3m and he's useless thats money wasted and if you buy a player at 30m and he helps your team become better or more successful then it's money well spent.
    If a player is wrong for your team then it doesnt matter whether you paid 10m or 40m, youve still wasted money, time, energy, missed opportunity, so many other things other than just the fee your were forced to pay.

    My main focus is on the idea that a player must meet certain expectations because of the figure placed on his head when he was bought. Take Stones,for example. There's no way he could do anything to justify that price tag or meet those exaltations. So what is the point in judging a player when you know the fee has already distorted and warped your expectations of him? Youre expecting him to live to an ideal you already know he cannot live to. What's the point, other than to use it as a crutch to support your own preconceptions.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    If a player is wrong for your team then it doesnt matter whether you paid 10m or 40m, youve still wasted money, time, energy, missed opportunity, so many other things other than just the fee your were forced to pay.

    My main focus is on the idea that a player must meet certain expectations because of the figure placed on his head when he was bought. Take Stones,for example. There's no way he could do anything to justify that price tag or meet those exaltations. So what is the point in judging a player when you know the fee has already distorted and warped your expectations of him? Youre expecting him to live to an ideal you already know he cannot live to. What's the point, other than to use it as a crutch to support your own preconceptions.
    I understand what you're saying, and that's fine if you're a club with unlimited resources who can just pay whatever it takes, to get a player that you need.

    But there's only a small handful of clubs in that category and we're not one of them.

    For everyone else, you do have to consider the fee as you're working on a limited budget.

    So yes, Stones was clearly not worth 50m, but City wanted him and payed the fee. That's fine as they're still able to go out and buy all the other players they wanted, so the 50m is pretty much irrelevant.

    We don't have such bottomless pockets though, so the fee must always be a huge consideration when deciding whether to buy someone and assessing if he's worth it or not.

    Everyone is adamant we should buy VVD in Jan, or next summer. If he costs 70m, then maybe we should get him. But what if Southampton start taking the pee and ask for 100m or 120m? By your logic, it doesn't matter what the fee is - as long as he improves us and does a good job, then we should pay what it takes. But spending an extra 50m on him could mean denying us a top holding midfielder too, and that is the consequence of overspending.

    You can't remove the cost from the equation because, like it or not, we're a business and have to be run like one.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    I understand what you're saying, and that's fine if you're a club with unlimited resources who can just pay whatever it takes, to get a player that you need.

    But there's only a small handful of clubs in that category and we're not one of them.

    For everyone else, you do have to consider the fee as you're working on a limited budget.

    So yes, Stones was clearly not worth 50m, but City wanted him and payed the fee. That's fine as they're still able to go out and buy all the other players they wanted, so the 50m is pretty much irrelevant.

    We don't have such bottomless pockets though, so the fee must always be a huge consideration when deciding whether to buy someone and assessing if he's worth it or not.

    Everyone is adamant we should buy VVD in Jan, or next summer. If he costs 70m, then maybe we should get him. But what if Southampton start taking the pee and ask for 100m or 120m? By your logic, it doesn't matter what the fee is - as long as he improves us and does a good job, then we should pay what it takes. But spending an extra 50m on him could mean denying us a top holding midfielder too, and that is the consequence of overspending.

    You can't remove the cost from the equation because, like it or not, we're a business and have to be run like one.
    Why do you need to consider the fee when youre discussing a player? How does an arbitrarily decided figure influence your view of what a player does or how he plays?

    Of course you can remove cost. Cost doesn't change how a player performs, so why would you use that as some sort of measure of his talent. Especially so when you know transfers fees are absolutely not a reflection or representative of talent. How do we know this? Because of the numerously wide and varied differences in players fees between clubs, leagues and countries. A players fee does not represent his quality, so why use it when assessing whether he's performing or not. There is no such thing as market value in football, so how do you determine whether a player is a 30m player or not, and subsequently how do you then know whether this player is performing as a 30m player should be performing. It's complete crap. What matters is how the player is performing for the team, what he offers you, what problems he solves, how influential he is to how you play, etc. His price once paid doesnt come into it.

    Your point about us just spending whatever on Van Dijk is a straw man too. It assumes that we would spend whatever it takes to secure him to the detriment of the rest of the team and other purchases. We don't have to spend beyond our means, and we won't spend if it means we cannot then purchase other players. We'll spend what we can afford. But this again is irrelevant to us as fans. We have no control over finances, so piping up with comments such as "I'd have him for 30m but not 40m is again meaningless. The focus should be the qualities of the player, what they can do for the team and what they offer. That's all that matters when discussing a footballer. But of course that requires some actual input, some thought and some knowledge, so we don't do that. We instead take the easy route and relate it to a fee. An arbitrarily decided fee that requires no real forethought at all.
    Last edited by FIOS; 7-11-17 at 16:53.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Why do you need to consider the view when youre discussing a player? How does an arbitrarily decided figure influence your view of what a player does or how he plays?

    Of course you can remove cost. Cost doesn't change how a player performs, so why would you use that as some sort of measure of his talent. Especially so when you know transfers fees are absolutely not a reflection or representative of talent. How do we know this? Because of the numerously wide and varied differences in players fees between clubs, leagues and countries. A players fee does not represent his quality, so why use it when assessing whether he's performing or not. There is no such thing as market value in football, so how do you determine whether a player is a 30m player or not, and subsequently how do you then know whether this player is performing as a 30m player should be performing. It's complete crap. What matters is how the player is performing for the team, what he offers you, what problems he solves, how influential he is to how you play, etc. His price once paid doesnt come into it.
    I don't think market value is as difficult to assess as you imply. OK, it's all gone a bit crazy in the last year or so, but prior to that, everyone was happy with knowing whether a player was a '20m player' or a '40m player'. We all knew, for example, that Andy Carroll was certainly not a '35m player'.

    I imagine once the market settles down again, we'll once again be comfortable with knowing how much players are worth, give or take a few million.

    Again, you can't just say 'he's playing well, solves some problems that we had and is a great addition to the team - therefore he's a great signing' without taking the cost into consideraton, because you're not comparing it to the alternative - ie the opportunity cost of what else the team could have had.

    In your world, a player that's performing well is a good signing, regardless of whether he cost 10m or 100m - but if we only had a budget of 100m, then you have to ask whether it was worth spending all our money on him, or could we have made better use of the money. The two definitely go hand in hand.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    I don't think market value is as difficult to assess as you imply. OK, it's all gone a bit crazy in the last year or so, but prior to that, everyone was happy with knowing whether a player was a '20m player' or a '40m player'. We all knew, for example, that Andy Carroll was certainly not a '35m player'.

    I imagine once the market settles down again, we'll once again be comfortable with knowing how much players are worth, give or take a few million.

    Again, you can't just say 'he's playing well, solves some problems that we had and is a great addition to the team - therefore he's a great signing' without taking the cost into consideraton, because you're not comparing it to the alternative - ie the opportunity cost of what else the team could have had.

    In your world, a player that's performing well is a good signing, regardless of whether he cost 10m or 100m - but if we only had a budget of 100m, then you have to ask whether it was worth spending all our money on him, or could we have made better use of the money. The two definitely go hand in hand.
    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.

    We know there is no such thing as a 20m or 35m player because players who were bought or sold for that price are so varied in their qualities and attributes. Take our fee of around 35m and then look at three players we paid that amount for in Carroll, Benteke, and Salah. All three are on a disproportionate scale to each other. There are far too many variables when it comes to transfers fees to establish whether that fee is a fair, accurate, true market valuation of a player. And we know this again because we've seen different players join different clubs in different leagues for similar amounts, all with hugely different levels of quality of players. What 25m gets you for a player in England is vastly different to in Italy, or Spain, or Germany. Clubs necessities distort price. Clubs wealth distort price. Clubs stature and standing. Different leagues distort it. Players desires to join a club distort it. Numerous things influence the price a club pays for a footballer. There is no such thing as an x amount player, and there hasnt been for quite some time.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    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.

    We know there is no such thing as a 20m or 35m player because players who were bought or sold for that price are so varied in their qualities and attributes. Take our fee of around 35m and then look at three players we paid that amount for in Carroll, Benteke, and Salah. All three are on a disproportionate scale to each other. There are far too many variables when it comes to transfers fees to establish whether that fee is a fair, accurate, true market valuation of a player. And we know this again because we've seen different players join different clubs in different leagues for similar amounts, all with hugely different levels of quality of players. What 25m gets you for a player in England is vastly different to in Italy, or Spain, or Germany. Clubs necessities distort price. Clubs wealth distort price. Clubs stature and standing. Different leagues distort it. Players desires to join a club distort it. Numerous things influence the price a club pays for a footballer. There is no such thing as an x amount player, and there hasnt been for quite some time.
    I think you're looking at this the wrong way round. Of course the fee can't influence his performance, but when assessing his performance it's right to consider the fee paid. The more you pay for a player - the higher the percentage of your limited budget parted with - the better he needs to be in order to justify it. Otherwise, the money could have been better spent elsewhere on different players that could have given you more for your money.

    Carroll, Benteke and Salah were bought at different times, in different markets - but of course we overpaid on Carroll and to a lesser extent Benteke, while Salah was a bargain.

    Yes there are many variables involved, but you always hear people take those into account. So people will say 'we shouldn't pay more than Xm for him as he's in his last year of his contract' or 'he's probably worth Ym but as he's English, or coming from a PL club, we'll have to pay Zm' - so we understand that different factors are involved when determining what the fee should be.

    Suppose there was a car you really wanted to buy - it had everything you wanted in a car and you couldn't wait to buy it. The car is generally worth about 10k, but on the day the dealer decided to take the mick and charged you 20k for it. Is that ok? I guess you'd be fine with that, I mean it doesn't matter if you pay 5k, 10k or 20k - the car will still perform the same - it will still give you all the pleasure you were hoping for from the car, so what difference eh? You can't judge how happy you are with the car by the fee paid - paying less doesn't change how fast it goes or how good it looks. Except, if you'd paid 10k you could have used the other 10k to have a top holiday in addition to the car. So yes you have overspent - this is what overspending is. To say 'there's no such thing as overspending' is clearly wrong - or does that just apply to football?

    I suspect you wouldn't be happy paying 20k for a 10k car - but perhaps you're a bit more careful when it comes to your own money, rather than LFC's?
    Last edited by Darrren1; 7-11-17 at 18:01.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    I think you're looking at this the wrong way round. Of course the fee can't influence his performance, but when assessing his performance it's right to consider the fee paid. The more you pay for a player - the higher the percentage of your limited budget parted with - the better he needs to be in order to justify it. Otherwise, the money could have been better spent elsewhere on different players that could have given you more for your money.

    Carroll, Benteke and Salah were bought at different times, in different markets - but of course we overpaid on Carroll and to a lesser extent Benteke, while Salah was a bargain.

    Yes there are many variables involved, but you always hear people take those into account. So people will say 'we shouldn't pay more than Xm for him as he's in his last year of his contract' or 'he's probably worth Ym but as he's English, or coming from a PL club, we'll have to pay Zm' - so we understand that different factors are involved when determining what the fee should be.

    Suppose there was a car you really wanted to buy - it had everything you wanted in a car and you couldn't wait to buy it. The car is generally worth about 10k, but on the day the dealer decided to take the mick and charged you 20k for it. Is that ok? I guess you'd be fine with that, I mean it doesn't matter if you pay 5k, 10k or 20k - the car will still perform the same - it will still give you all the pleasure you were hoping for from the car, so what difference eh? You can't judge how happy you are with the car by the fee paid - paying less doesn't change how fast it goes or how good it looks. Except, if you'd paid 10k you could have used the other 10k to have a top holiday in addition to the car. So yes you have overspent - this is what overspending is. To say 'there's no such thing as overspending' is clearly wrong - or does that just apply to football?

    I suspect you wouldn't be happy paying 20k for a 10k car - but perhaps you're a bit more careful when it comes to your own money, rather than LFC's?
    How am I looking at it the wrong way around? My view and comments have been on how a player performs and how his price tag shouldn't influence peoples view of that. That has clearly been the case from my first comment. A player is no better or worse because he cost 10m or 20m. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. A players fee doesn't determine how he performs. But what happens, is his fee governs your expectations. Which is entirely wrong.

    Why is it right to cite his fee when it comes to meeting expectations when we know that fee has been distorted by those numerous variables I've already cited. That absolutely makes no sense at all. I've already said that a fee a club pays doesn't reflect his quality or talent, so why would I then have him live up to those warped and distorted expectations? For example, you can say you expect a forward to be able to score x amount of goals because we paid 40m for him. Oxlade-Chamberlain then inhabits a world in which he is expected to score a significant number of goals, because players A, B , and C cost the same and provided x number of for their respective clubs, despite the fact that Oxlade-Chamberlain has never shown any kind of ability to score x number of goals. And this expectation exists purely because it was arbitrarily decided between two clubs that one should provide the other with 40m for the privilege of buying out his contract early.

    Your comment about the car is redundant. It is incomparable to footballer. Footballers cannot be equated to any other commodity. Because no such commodity exist on the same spectrum as football players. The variables when buying commodities are small in comparison to clubs purchasing players. Again, we know this because of the vast array of discrepancies in this mythical "market" people keep trying to adhere to. How can you have a market value for players when league, country, age, necessity, wealth, statue, position, desire of the player, agents, all influence where a player might end up playing? Liverpool's 50m in the bank does not equate to West Hams 50m, which doesnt equate to Bayerns 50m, which in turn doesnt equate to Dortmunds, or Madrids, or Barca's, or more glaringly obvious Evertons, and so on and so forth.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    lonewolf kal is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    I think you're looking at this the wrong way round. Of course the fee can't influence his performance, but when assessing his performance it's right to consider the fee paid. The more you pay for a player - the higher the percentage of your limited budget parted with - the better he needs to be in order to justify it. Otherwise, the money could have been better spent elsewhere on different players that could have given you more for your money.

    Carroll, Benteke and Salah were bought at different times, in different markets - but of course we overpaid on Carroll and to a lesser extent Benteke, while Salah was a bargain.

    Yes there are many variables involved, but you always hear people take those into account. So people will say 'we shouldn't pay more than Xm for him as he's in his last year of his contract' or 'he's probably worth Ym but as he's English, or coming from a PL club, we'll have to pay Zm' - so we understand that different factors are involved when determining what the fee should be.

    Suppose there was a car you really wanted to buy - it had everything you wanted in a car and you couldn't wait to buy it. The car is generally worth about 10k, but on the day the dealer decided to take the mick and charged you 20k for it. Is that ok? I guess you'd be fine with that, I mean it doesn't matter if you pay 5k, 10k or 20k - the car will still perform the same - it will still give you all the pleasure you were hoping for from the car, so what difference eh? You can't judge how happy you are with the car by the fee paid - paying less doesn't change how fast it goes or how good it looks. Except, if you'd paid 10k you could have used the other 10k to have a top holiday in addition to the car. So yes you have overspent - this is what overspending is. To say 'there's no such thing as overspending' is clearly wrong - or does that just apply to football?

    I suspect you wouldn't be happy paying 20k for a 10k car - but perhaps you're a bit more careful when it comes to your own money, rather than LFC's?
    fair comment in a way, but i think he would not have been bought as an option if the club couldn't really afford it. in that case the fee really is irrelevant compared to someone like carrol for instance who was bought as a starter and that money could, and should have been better spent.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    How am I looking at it the wrong way around? My view and comments have been on how a player performs and how his price tag shouldn't influence peoples view of that. That has clearly been the case from my first comment. A player is no better or worse because he cost 10m or 20m. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. A players fee doesn't determine how he performs. But what happens, is his fee governs your expectations. Which is entirely wrong.

    Why is it right to cite his fee when it comes to meeting expectations when we know that fee has been distorted by those numerous variables I've already cited. That absolutely makes no sense at all. I've already said that a fee a club pays doesn't reflect his quality or talent, so why would I then have him live up to those warped and distorted expectations? For example, you can say you expect a forward to be able to score x amount of goals because we paid 40m for him. Oxlade-Chamberlain then inhabits a world in which he is expected to score a significant number of goals, because players A, B , and C cost the same and provided x number of for their respective clubs, despite the fact that Oxlade-Chamberlain has never shown any kind of ability to score x number of goals. And this expectation exists purely because it was arbitrarily decided between two clubs that one should provide the other with 40m for the privilege of buying out his contract early.

    Your comment about the car is redundant. It is incomparable to footballer. Footballers cannot be equated to any other commodity. Because no such commodity exist on the same spectrum as football players. The variables when buying commodities are small in comparison to clubs purchasing players. Again, we know this because of the vast array of discrepancies in this mythical "market" people keep trying to adhere to. How can you have a market value for players when league, country, age, necessity, wealth, statue, position, desire of the player, agents, all influence where a player might end up playing? Liverpool's 50m in the bank does not equate to West Hams 50m, which doesnt equate to Bayerns 50m, which in turn doesnt equate to Dortmunds, or Madrids, or Barca's, or more glaringly obvious Evertons, and so on and so forth.
    Well the specific claim I'm taking issue with, is the one you made yesterday - that there's no such thing as overspending in football, if a player performs well then it doesn't matter what he costs.

    I'm not sure why you would compare the expectation of a 40m forward with a 40m Ox, or even a 40m defender as they all have different qualities and you would expect different things from all of them.

    But to go back to your original claim, let me illustrate my point with an extreme example:

    Suppose next summer we bought a left back for 10m. It's not a position that was a priority, but ok let's see how he does. Well it turns out, from pre-season and the first few games in August that he's outstanding - a real tough defender, doesn't allow crosses to come in, gets forward well and gets assists too.

    Everyone's really happy with him - even though it wasn't a priority, we now have a top class left back. Fantastic.

    But then, it turns out that he didn't cost 10m, instead he cost 100m - our entire budget - and that means that now we won't be bringing in anyone else.

    Do you think everyone will still think it's fantastic?

    It's not the player's fault that he cost 100m and the fee won't change his performance level - but when you take into account what was needed elsewhere in the team and how much was spent on this one player, then it's gone from being an astute purchase, to a complete disaster.

    This would certainly be a case of overspending - the very definition of it.

    But you would still maintain that you're happy with his performance so therefore it doesn't matter what he cost?

    When you're dealing with a limited budget, the cost always matters.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,786
    Quote Originally Posted by lonewolf kal View Post
    fair comment in a way, but i think he would not have been bought as an option if the club couldn't really afford it. in that case the fee really is irrelevant compared to someone like carrol for instance who was bought as a starter and that money could, and should have been better spent.
    Ok, but to be clear, this isn't specifically about Ox and his fee.

    This is about FIOS's general claim that 'there's no such thing as overspending in football - that if he's performing well and is a good addition to the team, then it doesn't matter how much he cost'.

    That is the point I've been taking issue with, not the Ox situation so much.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Well the specific claim I'm taking issue with, is the one you made yesterday - that there's no such thing as overspending in football, if a player performs well then it doesn't matter what he costs.

    I'm not sure why you would compare the expectation of a 40m forward with a 40m Ox, or even a 40m defender as they all have different qualities and you would expect different things from all of them.

    But to go back to your original claim, let me illustrate my point with an extreme example:

    Suppose next summer we bought a left back for 10m. It's not a position that was a priority, but ok let's see how he does. Well it turns out, from pre-season and the first few games in August that he's outstanding - a real tough defender, doesn't allow crosses to come in, gets forward well and gets assists too.

    Everyone's really happy with him - even though it wasn't a priority, we now have a top class left back. Fantastic.

    But then, it turns out that he didn't cost 10m, instead he cost 100m - our entire budget - and that means that now we won't be bringing in anyone else.

    Do you think everyone will still think it's fantastic?

    It's not the player's fault that he cost 100m and the fee won't change his performance level - but when you take into account what was needed elsewhere in the team and how much was spent on this one player, then it's gone from being an astute purchase, to a complete disaster.

    This would certainly be a case of overspending - the very definition of it.

    But you would still maintain that you're happy with his performance so therefore it doesn't matter what he cost?

    When you're dealing with a limited budget, the cost always matters.
    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.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Ok, but to be clear, this isn't specifically about Ox and his fee.

    This is about FIOS's general claim that 'there's no such thing as overspending in football - that if he's performing well and is a good addition to the team, then it doesn't matter how much he cost'.

    That is the point I've been taking issue with, not the Ox situation so much.

    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.
    Last edited by FIOS; 7-11-17 at 20:25.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    My view has been specific to Oxlade-Chamberlain, just to be clear on that. That's the discussion I wish to have.

    Darrren appears to want to discuss something else.

    I'm interested in why people continually cite his price, as if that has any influence on how he plays or performs. More specifically, I'm interested in why so many people allow the price to determine their view of the player, and why they let it influence them so powerfully.
    They cite his price because it's a substantial part of a budget that could be spent on our team and therefore want some value for that. Its not Ox s fault but the fee is a real pressure on both player and manager. Darren I think goes a long way in nailing the answer to your question.
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    They cite his price because it's a substantial part of a budget that could be spent on our team and therefore want some value for that. Its not Ox s fault but the fee is a real pressure on both player and manager. Darren I think goes a long way in nailing the answer to your question.
    It doesnt impact the player though, and the fee isn't an accurate or fair representation of his talent. So why would you allow that to influence how you view the player? It makes absolutely no sense. Judge the player on how he performs, not what you think is value for money. That's true of absolutely every single player we sign. Youre holding player to an ideal you already know and accept isn't fair or accurate. How do you establish value for money when there is no true market value. There is no such thing as a 40m player, so why would you hold your standard to something that doesnt actually exist? Why are your expectations governed by something that you know and accept is distorted?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    It doesnt impact the player though, and the fee isn't an accurate or fair representation of his talent. So why would you allow that to influence how you view the player? It makes absolutely no sense. Judge the player on how he performs, not what you think is value for money. That's true of absolutely every single player we sign. Youre holding player to an ideal you already know and accept isn't fair or accurate.
    Are you saying the fee hasn't impacted on the Ox? Because I would say it has hugely.
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    Are you saying the fee hasn't impacted on the Ox? Because I would say it has hugely.
    You mean to say he's been performing below whatever level you think he should be performing at because of his fee?

    I dont think that is the case at all either. It's not as if an arbitrarily decided figure then determines how a player performs.

    If he hasnt played well, blaming a price tag is an absolute cop out.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    You mean to say he's been performing below whatever level you think he should be performing at because of his fee?

    I dont think that is the case at all either. It's not as if an arbitrarily decided figure then determines how a player performs.

    If he hasnt played well, blaming a price tag is an absolute cop out.
    I do think he has been performing below his best and that is because of the pressure of his fee. He isn't stupid, he knows LFC made a big statement by not waiting until the summer and trying to get him on a free. He knows that and will want to prove to himself, the club and the fans he was worth that outlay of money.

    One of the old cliches trawled out to big money signings is to forget the fee and just play. If there wasn't a pressure with a large fee then that wouldn't come up so often.
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    Just on how I feel fees make a difference. In the case of Andy Carroll, if he had cost 12 million say, he would still be at the club imo. That would be a sufficiently low fee to justify keeping him as an impact substitute as one of the best in the world in aerial duels etc. But he didn't cost 12 million, he cost 35 million and suddenly the pressure is on to be a world beater week in week out... so in some ways FIOS u are right, the player should be judged on what he can offer not the fee. But he did cost 35 million and therefore it's seen as a masssive waste of money to keep him as a sub. The fee therefore needs to right...and I feel for Ox a little as it felt too much but time will tell.
    The fee is inconsequential to how he plays. We have no control over it. The player has no control over it. It's not a true reflection of his talent. It's not representative of his worth. We know and accept this. And we know and accept it because transfers fees have so so many variables leading up to why a player cost a club what it did. That's why 30m buy such a varied quality of player, to different clubs, in different leagues, with different circumstances. That's why you have Sigurdsson costing Everton 45m and Lacazette costing Arsenal the same.

    Carroll was the wrong player for his. Just like Benteke was the wrong player. And Balotelli was the wrong player. Signing any of those players for a lower fee wouldn't have made them any better signings. They were flat out the wrong players for how we played and what we needed.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    27,441
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    The fee is inconsequential to how he plays. We have no control over it. The player has no control over it. It's not a true reflection of his talent. It's not representative of his worth. We know and accept this. And we know and accept it because transfers fees have so so many variables leading up to why a player cost a club what it did. That's why 30m buy such a varied quality of player, to different clubs, in different leagues, with different circumstances. That's why you have Sigurdsson costing Everton 45m and Lacazette costing Arsenal the same.

    Carroll was the wrong player for his. Just like Benteke was the wrong player. And Balotelli was the wrong player. Signing any of those players for a lower fee wouldn't have made them any better signings. They were flat out the wrong players for how we played and what we needed.
    As usual, you're talking sense.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,372
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post

    One of the old cliches trawled out to big money signings is to forget the fee and just play. If there wasn't a pressure with a large fee then that wouldn't come up so often.
    What pressure is he under here? Most everyone accepts that he's not going to play ahead of any of our front four, and that he is essentially a squad player?
    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
  •