Transfer Going Rate

Holysmit

Holysmit

Well-known member
Joined
22 Feb 2001
Messages
16,210
Reaction score
7,864
Location
West London

Transfer Going Rate

Over the last two days I have been in a lengthy debate with Newcastle fans on twitter. It all stemmed from an article by Daniel Storey (who is very good on some things such as young talent and in fairness the lower leagues. But in my view deluded when it comes to big clubs and the transfer markets) stating that it was scandalous that Newcastle had never spent 20 million on a player.

My argument was and still is that it is depressing that it is now seen as depressing that a team doesn't spend 20 million on any player just because everyone else is doing it. I accept (and have said this) that if its the right player by all means spend the money if you have it, but why spend it for the sake of spending it if they don't actually improve the team. I have asked Newcastle fans to name me a player they feel they have missed out on or they should be signing but rather then provide me with one name they just say I don't get it and they should be more ambitious.

I have even given them a list of players who have gone for around the 20 million mark (and added in Darren Ward to Leicester and Angus Gunn to Southampton as the amount spent on them is insane) and asked whether they would have been happy with any of them. Again I don't get it apparently as they should be showing ambition and buying players for this amount or what's the point.

I have pointed out that Leicester key players, Vardy, Mahrez, Kante etc were all found on the cheap but nope that's not good enough. I have pointed out there is a booming amount of talent in the football league (admittedly some of this massively overpriced) and France if you do enough scouting but nope they are not interested.

I get that the market has rocketed but surely you shouldn't just be buying players for 20 million for the sake of it?
 

Transfer Going Rate

Holysmit said:
Over the last two days I have been in a lengthy debate with Newcastle fans on twitter. It all stemmed from an article by Daniel Storey (who is very good on some things such as young talent and in fairness the lower leagues. But in my view deluded when it comes to big clubs and the transfer markets) stating that it was scandalous that Newcastle had never spent 20 million on a player.

My argument was and still is that it is depressing that it is now seen as depressing that a team doesn't spend 20 million on any player just because everyone else is doing it. I accept (and have said this) that if its the right player by all means spend the money if you have it, but why spend it for the sake of spending it if they don't actually improve the team. I have asked Newcastle fans to name me a player they feel they have missed out on or they should be signing but rather then provide me with one name they just say I don't get it and they should be more ambitious.

I have even given them a list of players who have gone for around the 20 million mark (and added in Darren Ward to Leicester and Angus Gunn to Southampton as the amount spent on them is insane) and asked whether they would have been happy with any of them. Again I don't get it apparently as they should be showing ambition and buying players for this amount or what's the point.

I have pointed out that Leicester key players, Vardy, Mahrez, Kante etc were all found on the cheap but nope that's not good enough. I have pointed out there is a booming amount of talent in the football league (admittedly some of this massively overpriced) and France if you do enough scouting but nope they are not interested.

I get that the market has rocketed but surely you shouldn't just be buying players for 20 million for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

I think you've just perfectly summarised all of what is wrong in football, mate.
 

Transfer Going Rate

It's not the quality it's the statement, "look how good we are we're spending x amount on players". Deluded idiots are the ones that press their clubs for this approach despite proof that it rarely works, a prime example being Derby in recent times, and hopefully this season as well.
 

Transfer Going Rate

Holysmit said:
Over the last two days I have been in a lengthy debate with Newcastle fans on twitter. It all stemmed from an article by Daniel Storey (who is very good on some things such as young talent and in fairness the lower leagues. But in my view deluded when it comes to big clubs and the transfer markets) stating that it was scandalous that Newcastle had never spent 20 million on a player.

My argument was and still is that it is depressing that it is now seen as depressing that a team doesn't spend 20 million on any player just because everyone else is doing it. I accept (and have said this) that if its the right player by all means spend the money if you have it, but why spend it for the sake of spending it if they don't actually improve the team. I have asked Newcastle fans to name me a player they feel they have missed out on or they should be signing but rather then provide me with one name they just say I don't get it and they should be more ambitious.

I have even given them a list of players who have gone for around the 20 million mark (and added in Darren Ward to Leicester and Angus Gunn to Southampton as the amount spent on them is insane) and asked whether they would have been happy with any of them. Again I don't get it apparently as they should be showing ambition and buying players for this amount or what's the point.

I have pointed out that Leicester key players, Vardy, Mahrez, Kante etc were all found on the cheap but nope that's not good enough. I have pointed out there is a booming amount of talent in the football league (admittedly some of this massively overpriced) and France if you do enough scouting but nope they are not interested.

I get that the market has rocketed but surely you shouldn't just be buying players for 20 million for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

They're a funny bunch. I think the fixation on spending big is probably frustration with Mike Ashley. He's obviously a complete throbber but they think the problem with him is that he doesn't spend enough on players, despite their better buys having been relatively cheap and them having invested in getting a good manager. They had good players bought for non-outrageous sums when they went down and they bought sensibly to go back up. The problem is that they see themselves as a massive club who ought to be challenging up at the top of the league and so signing the sorts of players that interest teams in contention for Europa League/Champions League spots. But £20m isn't enough now for that and I guess unless and until they "do a Leicester" and do the hard job of finding and developing unfancied stars into a top team it will be easiest just to moan about not spending enough. However well they do short of that, it won't be enough for their "big club mentality" fans because they believe that they are bigger and ought to be better than Leicester, Bournemouth or Burnley.

A good example to point them to is Mitrovic who they bought for £13m but who didn't do a lot for them. They've now turned a very decent £9m profit on selling him to Fulham but that just shows the reality that £22m today buys a player who was surplus to their requirements because Ayoze Perez, who they bought for €3m in 2014 has done a better job for them (not to mention Gayle who they paid £10m for).

I like this attitude among big club fans because it is the sort of thing that helps us to compete. The point at which all the PL teams outside those aiming for Champions League spots (and Championship teams with parachute payments) wake up and start routinely looking at the unpolished gems is the point at which it becomes difficult for small clubs like us to have a chance, whether in the Championship or PL.
 

Transfer Going Rate

Reckon they listen to talkshite too much........thats all they go on about......x team has spent £100 million, x team £70 million etc, etc and then........x team not spent anything.........."they will be lucky to finish top 10, if they dont start spending"......'kin 'el
 

Transfer Going Rate

I've not questioned football transfer fees and wages etc since Middlesboro paid £1,000.00 for Alf Common in 1905!

For I believe that in the end, if you're going to be a top club, then you need to sign top players. And if those players cost gazillions, then so be it. The only question should be whether you've got the money or not. If you don't have it (or are gambling on getting it via promotion, or Europe etc), then you're an idiot.

If you do have it, but aren't prepared to spend it, because fees and wages are "too high", then you cannot expect to stay where you are, never mind progress and grow.

In Newcastle's position, I don't think their fans realistically expect them to be challenging the Top Four etc. Therefore you wouldn't expect them to be spending, say, £50-60m on their record purchase.

But I do think it reasonable to expect them to be comfortably mid-table, even challenging for European qualification. In which case you might expect them to go up to £30m or £35m for a player.

However, if they're unwilling to go beyond £20m - and we must assume with wages to match - then it suggests they're settling just for avoiding relegation, in 15th or 16th place, say. And that is a very dangerous strategy, since it only takes an unlucky/unexpected bad run in the last quarter of the season to see a team slip under.

Anyhow, by way of comparison, here is the current list of record transfers paid by EPL clubs, in order of where they finished last season (hope it's accurate):

M.City - £60m Mahrez
MU - £89m Pogba
Spurs - £42m Sanchez
Liverpool - £75m VVD
Chelsea - £58m Morata
Burnley - £15m Wood(!)
Everton - £45m Siggurdson
Leicester - £29m Slimani
Newcastle - £16m Michael Owen (in 2005!)
Palace - £27m Benteke
Bournemouth - £20m Ake
WHU - £36m Anderson
Watford - £18m Andre Gray ;)
Brighton - £17m Some Iranian
Hudds - £17m Kongolo
Soton - £19m Carrillo

Obviously there are a few outliers there - most notably Burnley.

And you might argue that Newcastle themselves have bucked the trend. However, I think that's down to an exceptional manager, and he's not likely to stick around unless he's given proper funds.

Besides which, it's not just that the other clubs around and below Newcastle are outspending them, but even two of the newly promoted teams, Wolves (esp) and Fulham(!).

Considering the Toon regularly pack out St.James with 55k every game, and their owner is a billionaire, I think I'd be absolutely furious were I a Newcastle fan right now.
 

Transfer Going Rate

Ealing Bee said:
I've not questioned football transfer fees and wages etc since Middlesboro paid £1,000.00 for Alf Common in 1905!

For I believe that in the end, if you're going to be a top club, then you need to sign top players. And if those players cost gazillions, then so be it. The only question should be whether you've got the money or not. If you don't have it (or are gambling on getting it via promotion, or Europe etc), then you're an idiot.

If you do have it, but aren't prepared to spend it, because fees and wages are "too high", then you cannot expect to stay where you are, never mind progress and grow.

In Newcastle's position, I don't think their fans realistically expect them to be challenging the Top Four etc. Therefore you wouldn't expect them to be spending, say, £50-60m on their record purchase.

But I do think it reasonable to expect them to be comfortably mid-table, even challenging for European qualification. In which case you might expect them to go up to £30m or £35m for a player.

However, if they're unwilling to go beyond £20m - and we must assume with wages to match - then it suggests they're settling just for avoiding relegation, in 15th or 16th place, say. And that is a very dangerous strategy, since it only takes an unlucky/unexpected bad run in the last quarter of the season to see a team slip under.

Anyhow, by way of comparison, here is the current list of record transfers paid by EPL clubs, in order of where they finished last season (hope it's accurate):

M.City - £60m Mahrez
MU - £89m Pogba
Spurs - £42m Sanchez
Liverpool - £75m VVD
Chelsea - £58m Morata
Burnley - £15m Wood(!)
Everton - £45m Siggurdson
Leicester - £29m Slimani
Newcastle - £16m Michael Owen (in 2005!)
Palace - £27m Benteke
Bournemouth - £20m Ake
WHU - £36m Anderson
Watford - £18m Andre Gray ;)
Brighton - £17m Some Iranian
Hudds - £17m Kongolo
Soton - £19m Carrillo

Obviously there are a few outliers there - most notably Burnley.

And you might argue that Newcastle themselves have bucked the trend. However, I think that's down to an exceptional manager, and he's not likely to stick around unless he's given proper funds.

Besides which, it's not just that the other clubs around and below Newcastle are outspending them, but even two of the newly promoted teams, Wolves (esp) and Fulham(!).

Considering the Toon regularly pack out St.James with 55k every game, and their owner is a billionaire, I think I'd be absolutely furious were I a Newcastle fan right now.
Click to expand...

It is perhaps telling that few of those top transfers which are recent ones are for the players who have done most for those clubs or are their clear stand out stars. Some are new, so haven't had a chance, but many look to be players who were transformational at their previous club where they went for much more modest amounts (Mahrez must surely top this list in terms of the ratio between what Leicester paid for him and what they have got for him). There are also some absolutely crazy numbers for players just off the top spot - Liverpool have just spent £65m on a keeper fgs! If any Newcastle fan thinks they'd be improved by breaking their transfer record to buy Andre Gray they need their head examined.
 

Transfer Going Rate

AB said:
It is perhaps telling that few of those top transfers which are recent ones are for the players who have done most for those clubs or are their clear stand out stars. Some are new, so haven't had a chance, but many look to be players who were transformational at their previous club where they went for much more modest amounts (Mahrez must surely top this list in terms of the ratio between what Leicester paid for him and what they have got for him). There are also some absolutely crazy numbers for players just off the top spot - Liverpool have just spent £65m on a keeper fgs! If any Newcastle fan thinks they'd be improved by breaking their transfer record to buy Andre Gray they need their head examined.
Click to expand...
Some of those record signings haven't worked out, obviously. But many of them were only a few million dearer than the next three or four most expensive signings, and many of those proved to be excellent signings.

Meanwhile, how many of Newcastle's signings worked out? You know, the ones who got them relegated two seasons ago? And how much did that cost the club?

Anyhow, my point is that all clubs have their transfer successes and failures, but in the end it's all relative.

And imo, a club like Newcastle should not be being seriously outspent by clubs like Leicester or Everton, never mind Watford and Andre Gray! If nothing else, many expensive players still have big resale potential eg Chelsea paid £32m for Kante and they'd get twice as much today if they sold him.
 
Last edited:

Transfer Going Rate

Transfer Going Rate

Holysmit said:
Over the last two days I have been in a lengthy debate with Newcastle fans on twitter. It all stemmed from an article by Daniel Storey (who is very good on some things such as young talent and in fairness the lower leagues. But in my view deluded when it comes to big clubs and the transfer markets) stating that it was scandalous that Newcastle had never spent 20 million on a player.

My argument was and still is that it is depressing that it is now seen as depressing that a team doesn't spend 20 million on any player just because everyone else is doing it. I accept (and have said this) that if its the right player by all means spend the money if you have it, but why spend it for the sake of spending it if they don't actually improve the team. I have asked Newcastle fans to name me a player they feel they have missed out on or they should be signing but rather then provide me with one name they just say I don't get it and they should be more ambitious.

I have even given them a list of players who have gone for around the 20 million mark (and added in Darren Ward to Leicester and Angus Gunn to Southampton as the amount spent on them is insane) and asked whether they would have been happy with any of them. Again I don't get it apparently as they should be showing ambition and buying players for this amount or what's the point.

I have pointed out that Leicester key players, Vardy, Mahrez, Kante etc were all found on the cheap but nope that's not good enough. I have pointed out there is a booming amount of talent in the football league (admittedly some of this massively overpriced) and France if you do enough scouting but nope they are not interested.

I get that the market has rocketed but surely you shouldn't just be buying players for 20 million for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

I think you make a very good point. It has become quite engrained in the fans mind and the pundits/ TV commentators that big clubs have to spend big money or the club is somehow lacking "ambition" or the players they buy are not good enough for a club of their stature.

This very point seems to apply to a club like Manu who do not seem to look at a player unless he is priced at £40m plus or so and seem to strive to spend as much as they can on one single player regardless of whether he is actually worth it. Can you imagine the reaction of their "world wide fanbase" if they signed a player of unrealised talent for a couple of million even though he may turn out to be the next Cantona or Scholes?
 

Transfer Going Rate

allanfinnie said:
Tony Hateley going to Chelsea for £100,000 was a lifetime ago!
Click to expand...

I can remember when Jimmy Greaves came back from AC Milan to Spurs, the fee quoted was £99,999 purely so that he wasn’t burdened with being a £100k player! How times have changed in that the amounts of largesse dispensed are positively glorified, and treated competitively themselves!
 

Transfer Going Rate

Steve MacKenzie as a teenage kid from Palace without playing to City for £250K was seen as football gone mad.
Shortly after they bought Steve Daley for nearly £1.5M who was a complete flop and regarded for many years later as the biggest waste of money ever.
 

Transfer Going Rate

JANORAK said:
I can remember when Jimmy Greaves came back from AC Milan to Spurs, the fee quoted was £99,999 purely so that he wasn’t burdened with being a £100k player! How times have changed in that the amounts of largesse dispensed are positively glorified, and treated competitively themselves!
Click to expand...

Whereas in this era, Gareth Bale's transfer fee to Real Madrid was under-estimated (in Spanish media according to Wiki), but only so that Cristiano Ronaldo would not be offended by losing his status as the world's most expensive player.


You make a valuable point in your original post Holysmit. It's all about status for those fans. They do not want to be seen to be following a penny-pinching club but to be keeping up with the neighbours in every way. Their owner (who is a nob of course) would prefer to buy a £10k car that holds its value and does good mileage. They want the £50k car that they can bring up at every opportunity when chatting to their mates. Even if the £50k were available for £20k that would still look less flash.
 

Transfer Going Rate

Everything is relative. I can't find it now, but I recently read an article about Zidane's transfer from Juve to RM for £46m in 2001. At the time, this represented a significant %age of the entire turnover in Spanish football that season.

Were it to be repeated on the same %age basis, the equivalent transfer today would be over £400m.

Did anyone feel Real overpaid for ZZ back in 2001?
 

Transfer Going Rate

Everything is relative and really the massive fees are only a relatively recent phenomenon when you consider that Martin Peters only cost £200k back in the day

Fans of the “ big “ clubs review their clubs in the light of the transfer fees they pay, an opinion that is promoted by the various radio programs that deride the clubs if they are not chucking massive amounts of money about.

Even we are now entering that cycle when we just shrug our shoulders when we spend a few millions and are underwhelmed if a player costs just a couple of hundred thousand. Oh how it’s changed since MB has become involved
 

Transfer Going Rate

The Pipe said:
Everything is relative and really the massive fees are only a relatively recent phenomenon when you consider that Martin Peters only cost £200k back in the day
Click to expand...
Actually, if you were to go back to the Peters transfer, I suspect you'd find that as a percentage of Spurs turnover in 1970, £200k was a huge fee to pay. I mean, what was the admission fee to WHL back in those days? A few shillings? The average cost of a ticket for the new WHL will over £50 a pop.

So to keep things in perspective, when eg Man U paid £116k for Denis Law in 1962, I've read that that was actually more than Louis Edwards paid to buy outright control of the entire club around the same period.

The Pipe said:
Fans of the “ big “ clubs review their clubs in the light of the transfer fees they pay, an opinion that is promoted by the various radio programs that deride the clubs if they are not chucking massive amounts of money about.
Click to expand...
Some fans - probably the younger, more impressionable ones - complain when their club declines to spend big fees just for the appearance of it. And these are the ones who get featured on various talk radio stations who are desperate to fill airtime with contributors who don't have to be paid.

My guess is that the majority of fans are content enough if their club is signing the calibre and value of player befitting of their club status, which is fair enough (imo). Remember, when it comes to "inflated" transfer fees, we're usually taking about EPL clubs. Yet fewer of those clubs are getting into financial trouble than ever before, indeed they're generally proving more profitable than they've ever been.

In Newcastle's case. considering the size of the club and the 55k they get every week, the fact that their (billionaire, sleazebag) owner hasn't bought anyone of note since he took over, and only spent even moderate money when it looked like the Toon would go down, is real cause for discontent amongst their fans (imo).

I'd say driving the popular Kevin Keegan out of the club and replacing him with Joe Kinnear, Denis Wise and the rest of his "Cockney Mafia" didn't endear him greatly either.

The Pipe said:
Even we are now entering that cycle when we just shrug our shoulders when we spend a few millions and are underwhelmed if a player costs just a couple of hundred thousand. Oh how it’s changed since MB has become involved
Click to expand...
This debate was prompted by the case of Newcastle United of the EPL.

Brentford are not Newcastle, the Championship is not the EPL and Mr. Benham is "only" a multi-millionaire, not a billionaire like Ashley.

So complaints which you legitimately make about overspending, transfers and wages etc in our situation do not automatically transfer to St.James Park (imo).

They are quite literally "in a different league".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom