Transfer Fees Have Gone Mad
- Thread starter strocky
- Start date
Does he think that?
Can you provide some documentary evidence for that statement please?
I imagine he (with all justification) thinks hes quite good, he is the 7th highest premier league goal scorer of all time.
And here is the real kicker for all you haters, if he scores 25 more league goals between now and retirement, he will be the 2nd highest premier league goal scorer of all time.
In fact, there is a very real chance that he might end up in the top ten league goal scorers of all time.
Last edited:
Soldato
4th record goal scorer in Man Utd's history, only 69 goals off being the clubs record goal scorer, oh how it hurts that he's only semi decent
a player is still untested (no matter how many starts he has had) if none of them have come in a major league (which imo is rating his "experience" as well)
Ie you can have a player who has completed lets say 300 starts in the turkish league and may be vastly experienced in that league - however if he then moves to the EPL or La Liga, he is still untested (as the leagues themselves differ so much in quality) - same kind of player who only has ~50 starts for a mid-table la liga side would normally be much more highly valued (by other top sides)
Wilshire and Cleverley are two "kids" I would group with Witsel - Wilshire has seemingly been around longer but appears injured a lot of that time. admittedly I thought Hulk was younger than 26
Ie you can have a player who has completed lets say 300 starts in the turkish league and may be vastly experienced in that league - however if he then moves to the EPL or La Liga, he is still untested (as the leagues themselves differ so much in quality) - same kind of player who only has ~50 starts for a mid-table la liga side would normally be much more highly valued (by other top sides)
Wilshire and Cleverley are two "kids" I would group with Witsel - Wilshire has seemingly been around longer but appears injured a lot of that time. admittedly I thought Hulk was younger than 26
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Didn't we pay something like £12 million for Ronaldo? That seems like an incredible bargain when Moura (who may or may not turn out to be as good as Ronaldo) went for nearly three times that amount. I do think it's insane that PSG were willing to pay that much for him, but then the Andy Carroll deal was also nuts, particularly when you consider that Barca paid less for David Villa!
It comes down to how much money the clubs have to spend and how sensible they want to be. The PSG owners are perfectly happy to spend this sort of money in the pursuit of success, and they are able to spend it. The worrying aspect of these inflated transfer fees is that they often cause other smaller clubs to overreach and spend more than they should be in an attempt to stay competitive.
It comes down to how much money the clubs have to spend and how sensible they want to be. The PSG owners are perfectly happy to spend this sort of money in the pursuit of success, and they are able to spend it. The worrying aspect of these inflated transfer fees is that they often cause other smaller clubs to overreach and spend more than they should be in an attempt to stay competitive.
Caporegime
David Villa was a pretty different situation though, Valencia were struggling for money and he was already in the twilight of his career, and I'm not sure about this part but I think Barca was the only place he wanted to go. In contrast Liverpool desperately needed a striker, Newcastle didn't have to sell and held all the power.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
TBF I was alluding more to the Chelsea/Man City/PSG/Anzhi owners.
You are indeed correct re Man Utd's multi-billionaire owners not spending vast funds of their own money on transfers, in fact they do the opposite and actually make great returns from their leveraged ownership of Man Utd which is mortgaged up to the hilt
Re the Sky money, it WILL reach saturation point and the bubble WILL burst.
Even at the moment, clubs who are relegated (even with parachute) payments are financially hamstrung and/or can go burst (Portsmouth/Hull) because of the anomaly of what Sky pay for the rights to the EPL
Hopefully UEFA's financial fair play rules will help make the European game a more level playing field
Just thought I'd point out, there is no bubble. There is TV money, its increasing, if you spend more than there is now on the assumption of future money, that's nothing short of bad business. The tv market for football is ever expanding, while the growth of that tv market will slow and eventually halt, there is no reason it would go down in any significant amount so there is no bubble to burst.
If you spend the money you're getting and no more, there is all but no financial risk. THe clubs that have gotten in trouble have simply spent more than they have to get higher, and failed badly. Pompie = bunch of players without clauses in contract, a wage for premier league, a wage for championship, a wage for league 1, etc, etc, and that has all but destroyed the club. Other teams do have that, Blackpool have done phenomenally well, they both spent almost nothing to get promoted, spent almost nothing when they did, and had few costs to cover when they got relegated with wage decreases covering the difference from lack of income.
A sensible club will never get in trouble, a club risking it all for success will, like any other industry, growing or stable, get themselves into trouble, there is incredible margin for a team to make a monumental profit being in the prem league as well if people really wanted to.
Bubble implies that the money going into the EPL will suddenly vanish, but that just isn't going to happen. I think tv money will continue to grow for a while, taper off as we get to the point most countries in the world can watch plenty of live games(we're almost there now). Then we'll get another influx when they finally let people get like a season pass for their teams or all games, £200-400 a year to get a channel with your chosen teams games live, all of them.
EDIT:- Teams treating it like a bubble and spending money now on future income are in trouble but they'd be in trouble anyway, that is mostly teams spending to stay up or get promoted. I think Pompie and West Ham both spent money they hadn't earned yet which is beyond retarded of both of them, they got loans secured against future ticket sales. Even worse when you get relegated and the ticket's either don't sell out or need to go down in price. West Ham got caught in debt, and then without any income for like 1-2 seasons as they'd already spent the ticket moneyy which was just going to the bank as it came in.
The mad thing is how good scouting and hard work trumps overspending on crap players anyway. Get Fat Sam on a big wage who makes lots of expensive poor buys, or Pardew on a tiny contract, who has done only sensible things, then get 5th in the league. Simple and cheap is very doable, there are great value deals every single year. Bad decisions and bad managers don't mean a mental market or there wouldn't be any good value players any more.
Last edited:
Soldato
I remember when Newcastle broke the world record fee signing Shearer for £15mill. Now that was an amazing day to be up at St James /nostalgia.
Fair points, however the current system only allows an elite 2 or 3 to win the EPL or the CL (with the odd shock in the CL)
Last season only 8 out of the 20 EPL clubs made a profit
Some where spending 70%+ of their T/O on wages alone
Thankfully it looks like the EPL are taking measures to ensure the next SKY deal payday isn't just spent on transfer fees & wages (according to this article in the Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/06/premier-league-salary-cap
Last edited:
Soldato
Associate
Club buys overrated, overpriced player, club increases ticket prices to pay overpriced players wage demands, fans continue to buy expensive tickets...
Club buys another overrated, overpriced player, ticket prices increase to pay wages, rinse and repeat.
Club buys another overrated, overpriced player, ticket prices increase to pay wages, rinse and repeat.
Soldato
I think you confused ticket prices with Sky subscription costs.
Caporegime
Wan bissaka 70m lol
While they say the players have the power in many cases such as AWB above Crystal Palace have it. He’s on a contract and, I’m sure, they’d be very happy to keep him so have priced him accordingly. Who is at fault here really? Palace or the club willing to pay the price Palace have set? I’m sure I don’t need to give you a clue.
For the big, big clubs they can earn massive amounts. Spurs CL escapades will likely have netted them £100m+ not to mention associated benefits in sponsorship in the future. Liverpool’s even more. Real, Barca and Man United are all bringing in £600m+ a season from marketing, sales, tv money etc. £11.5m a week on average for £600m a year. If you count player sales on top they can clearly afford players like this and if it then brings even more success it’s worth it.
For the big, big clubs they can earn massive amounts. Spurs CL escapades will likely have netted them £100m+ not to mention associated benefits in sponsorship in the future. Liverpool’s even more. Real, Barca and Man United are all bringing in £600m+ a season from marketing, sales, tv money etc. £11.5m a week on average for £600m a year. If you count player sales on top they can clearly afford players like this and if it then brings even more success it’s worth it.
Individual players like Ronaldo and Neymar are individual cases and should be treated as such (Im talking Utd - RM, or Barca to PSG when the players were past the "potential" talent, and performing game in game out at the highest level).
Im also all for clubs no matter where they are making a decent profit from their players if they are sold...but players who are still "potential" going for £100m euros when their contract is worth £1m does seem to be profiteering on a massive scale.
I can appreciate it being a little controversial, but I also think in some cases the club also has a "duty of care" to the player. I don't know the odds, but I wouldn't say its common that the biggest clubs actually put in an offer for the same player window after window - does the current club really have a right to take away the "once in a lifetime" opportunity? I would say no they don't myself (obviously within reason, the smallr club shouldn't overprice and the buying club shouldn't expect every player to be a few million more than what they were bought for)
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
The market for player in football is very competitive and reacts very quickly, so the prices tend to reflect clubs ability to pay and the actual current value of the player. There are very few top level jobs where millions of people watch you live doing your job and have so much commentary with action replays etc. Could you imagine how most people would fare if they were followed round by a film crew and pundits continually assessing their work.
sorry that's complete bs imo
No way do players value's double in one season in a mid table team
IF a youngster was bought for a bargain of a few million then fair enough - but when the original transfer was 20-30m the value should only double to the ~60m range after consistency has been proven year on year at that level (or exceeded it)
Too many players are in that price bracket straight off the bat after one good season and its just beyond daft
Millions (around the world) probably watch the Portuguese league / French league etc which is generally considerably less quality than BL / La Liga / EPL - yet young kids after one decent season are still expected to go for 70-80 m
Market forces determine the price of players and their salaries. It's not a coincidence that everytime a new TV deal is signed, fees and wages rise a similar percentage. Fees may have double or tripled since x but the money clubs have available to them had doubled or tripled too.
If you're looking specifically at PL sides, nobody is forced to sell a player anymore. There is so much money in the PL that unless you're offered an amount that you believe can be used to improve your side then why would you sell.
If you're looking specifically at PL sides, nobody is forced to sell a player anymore. There is so much money in the PL that unless you're offered an amount that you believe can be used to improve your side then why would you sell.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
That’s exactly it.