Transfer discussion thread

[PendlePie]

No, I would have thought a club would sit there and say "We value this player at X, they want X + 20m, we won't buy him because we back our world class facilities to turn a player who costs X - 10m to turn into a better player." Or, "Our second option won't cost as much but isn't worse enough to justify not moving on to him."

So either improve your facilities or improve your scouting network.

Which is easier and more efficient for a club like City - to spend an extra 10-20m on an established player, or improve their scouting network and target younger players & put time and development into them?

kangaspurs noted how Spurs shouldn't sell for less as they have an incentive to milk it. Which I agree with. I'm just noting how City have a clear incentive to meet the exorbitant prices too (it's timely, it barely dents their bottom line, and it makes their squad better immediately) so why shouldn't they?

This. Shit. Works. Both. Ways.

 

[SM]

Which is easier and more efficient for a club like City - to spend an extra 10-20m on an established player, or improve their scouting network and target younger players & put time and development into them?

kangaspurs noted how Spurs shouldn't sell for less as they have an incentive to milk it. Which I agree with. I'm just noting how City have a clear incentive to meet the exorbitant prices too (it's timely, it barely dents their bottom line, and it makes their squad better immediately) so why shouldn't they?

This. Shit. Works. Both. Ways.

It really doesn't, and it's been discussed to death. No one is putting a gun to the head of the buying club and forcing them to accept a fee set by the selling club. The fact that you and Elhadj don't seem to understand this is baffling.

Here's a good example - and ironically involves Spurs. Newcastle internally valued both Wijnaldum and Sissoko around 10-15m. Reports surfaced in the media that Newcastle valued them at around 30m. When Spurs and Liverpool didn't drop their interest after these reports, Newcastle revalued their estimations of each player accordingly, and managed to get 30m for Sissoko and 24m for Wijnaldum.

Is it their fault for accpeting the higher fee? Should they have said to Liverpool "We actually are only after 10m for Wijnaldum, cheers for the 25m offer though."

 

[kangaspurs]

Which is easier and more efficient for a club like City - to spend an extra 10-20m on an established player, or improve their scouting network and target younger players & put time and development into them?

kangaspurs noted how Spurs shouldn't sell for less as they have an incentive to milk it. Which I agree with. I'm just noting how City have a clear incentive to meet the exorbitant prices too (it's timely, it barely dents their bottom line, and it makes their squad better immediately) so why shouldn't they?

This. Shit. Works. Both. Ways.

But we're not forcing them to do so though.

I still don't understand how it's the selling clubs fault. IS Swansea at fault for asking 50m for a prized asset in Sigurdsson? I wouldn't have thought so, but if, say, Everton, are stupid enough to pay it then it's their problem, not Swanseas.

It's also a side product of the ridiculous prize money in the pl and that which is involved with the TV deal. Clubs have no incentive to sell their best players for peanuts because teh value of staying in the PL is worth a lot more than whatever they're going to earn from a player unless it's an exorbitant amount.

 

[SM]

A fantastic article I read last month that goes into it all:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

 

[PendlePie]

It really doesn't, and it's been discussed to death. No one is putting a gun to the head of the buying club and forcing them to accept a fee set by the selling club. The fact that you and Elhadj don't seem to understand this is baffling.

Here's a good example - and ironically involves Spurs. Newcastle internally valued both Wijnaldum and Sissoko around 10-15m. Reports surfaced in the media that Newcastle valued them at around 30m. When Spurs and Liverpool didn't drop their interest after these reports, Newcastle revalued their estimations of each player accordingly, and managed to get 30m for Sissoko and 24m for Wijnaldum.

Is it their fault for accpeting the higher fee? Should they have said to Liverpool "We actually are only after 10m for Wijnaldum, cheers for the 25m offer though."

Your question shows you don't understand the simple point I'm trying to convey. Of course Newcastle are within their rights to milk it. But should Spurs and Liverpool have refused to spend the extra 10m on these targets? No ******* way.

Top level clubs exist to improve and win matches, not to appease the moral standards set upon them by some fans and "do their part" for fear of market inflation. Newcastle set a high price, it's no surprise that cashed up EPL clubs will pay a bit extra to meet those prices. What's so hard to get?

 

[moomba]

Why would you choose your second choice target when your first choice is within a price range you find acceptable and affordable?

 

[PendlePie]

Why would you choose your second choice target when your first choice is within a price range you find acceptable and affordable?

BINGO

 

[SM]

Why would you choose your second choice target when your first choice is within a price range you find acceptable and affordable?

Where did I say you shouldn't choose your first choice if the price is within a range that you're willing to accept?

 

[SM]

No, I would have thought a club would sit there and say "We value this player at X, they want X + 20m, we won't buy him because we back our world class facilities to turn a player who costs X - 10m to turn into a better player." Or, "Our second option won't cost as much but isn't worse enough to justify not moving on to him."

So either improve your facilities or improve your scouting network.

 

[SM]

If Pendles and Moomba are genuinely trying to suggest "If you have the money why not spend it" why bother with haggling over fees at all? Why did Man City submit bids for Mendy/Walker/et al that have been rejected? Why not just offer 60-70m for each of them, knowing they'd be accepted on the spot?

Just because the club has the money in reserves doesn't mean they won't try and haggle and get the best price. It also doesn't mean that just because you have the money in reserve and really want a player, you pay absolutely any price for them.

 

[PendlePie]

If Pendles and Moomba are genuinely trying to suggest "If you have the money why not spend it" why bother with haggling over fees at all? Why did Man City submit bids for Mendy/Walker/et al that have been rejected? Why not just offer 60-70m for each of them, knowing they'd be accepted on the spot?

Just because the club has the money in reserves doesn't mean they won't try and haggle and get the best price. It also doesn't mean that just because you have the money in reserve and really want a player, you pay absolutely any price for them.

If it's affordable for a club to pay that premium, and it means getting their first choice target and immediately strengthening the team, then why shouldn't they do it?

Like I said - clubs don't exist to appease those who complain about exorbitant spending and an inflated market. If Spurs demand 50m and City can afford this roughly 20m premium, then there's two parties who are contributing to the state of the market with both clearly acting in their respective best interests. It's really a simple concept.

 

[moomba]

If Pendles and Moomba are genuinely trying to suggest "If you have the money why not spend it" why bother with haggling over fees at all? Why did Man City submit bids for Mendy/Walker/et al that have been rejected? Why not just offer 60-70m for each of them, knowing they'd be accepted on the spot?

Just because the club has the money in reserves doesn't mean they won't try and haggle and get the best price. It also doesn't mean that just because you have the money in reserve and really want a player, you pay absolutely any price for them.

No one is suggesting that.

 

[Zidane98]

If Pendles and Moomba are genuinely trying to suggest "If you have the money why not spend it" why bother with haggling over fees at all? Why did Man City submit bids for Mendy/Walker/et al that have been rejected? Why not just offer 60-70m for each of them, knowing they'd be accepted on the spot?

Just because the club has the money in reserves doesn't mean they won't try and haggle and get the best price. It also doesn't mean that just because you have the money in reserve and really want a player, you pay absolutely any price for them.

So much this. And the current transfer market is inflated as a result of clubs who have pretty much unlimited funds who pay pretty much anything if they want a player. The transfer market was not like that in the past.

 

[moomba]

So much this. And the current transfer market is inflated as a result of clubs who have pretty much unlimited funds who pay pretty much anything if they want a player. The transfer market was not like that in the past.

The transfer market has inflated roughly in line with the increase in TV money.

If a club spends more than they can afford for a player because we spent £50m on Kyle Walker then more fool them. They are the irresponsible ones.

 

[largebus]

Yeah. Seen the gag before. It's a funny one.

Still with an average spend of less than £20m a year on our defence over the past 9 years before this one we've bought defenders with 12 premier league winners medals between them, not to mention FA and league cups.

Bet some clubs would love that sort of ratio.

something something but muh champions leegz

 

[SM]

No one is suggesting that.

Then why misrepresent what I was saying?

 

[SM]

If it's affordable for a club to pay that premium, and it means getting their first choice target and immediately strengthening the team, then why shouldn't they do it?

Like I said - clubs don't exist to appease those who complain about exorbitant spending and an inflated market. If Spurs demand 50m and City can afford this roughly 20m premium, then there's two parties who are contributing to the state of the market with both clearly acting in their respective best interests. It's really a simple concept.

Yeah you're struggling with it too. Really not sure how this is still going.

 

[moomba]

Then why misrepresent what I was saying?

I didnt make any reference to what you posted.

 

[PendlePie]

Yeah you're struggling with it too. Really not sure how this is still going.

Lol

 

[Established1870]

 

[Cruyff14]

Yeah if Spurs (in this instance), are trying to get the most they can for selling a player of their own, and then cry foul that it is inflating prices, they can't really complain if they contribute (partially) to it.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Every club is responsible for the transfer market and its inflation.

 

[moomba]

Shearer was the British record transfer in 1997 at £15m. TV money now is over 50 times bigger than it was then.

 

[FAITH]

will be interesting to see what we do when barca come in with a 100m p bid for cout

 

[moomba]

To be fair I think he's worth a bit more than 100m pence.