Player Valuations

cson

Had a discussion with a mate about this today, do you think that the price tags put on english players is ridiculous?

Case for the prosecution;
Ashley Young €10m to Villa
€20m being asked for Darren Bent
€10m ish for a talented but unproven LB Gareth Bale
€12m Theo Walcott
€20m Carrick

Thats just for starters. The price of young english players is astronomical considering most are unproven on the biggest stages. And then people wonder why Arsenal/Chelsea field entire 11s without english players.

sweetie

yes

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes squared

wanabe

yes by infinity!!!

PHB

Well Carrick wasn't 18 million cause he was English, it's cause there is a serious lack of quality midfielders around.
But yeh, it's nuts.

redzerdrog

eh yeh!

el rabitos

yes. and futhermore, its christiano ronaldo's fault.

smashey

Don't forget the role agents play in this. They "leak" information to the press saying player x has been contacted by club y for a fee of (insert stupidly inflated figure here).

therecklessone

cson wrote:

And then people wonder why Arsenal/Chelsea field entire 11s without english players.

I've never accepted that argument TBH.

Michael Carrick could have been had for a little over £3m two years before Utd finally paid £14m (plus £4m+ in extras) if they'd been prepared to take a chance on him. Hell, Arsenal had him lined up as their Viera replacement then pulled out of the deal.

Speaking of Arsenal, rumours abounded that Arsene Wenger wanted to sign Curtis Davies but was put off by the asking price. Of course, he could have got him in as a trainee for nowt seeing as he was mates with the Hoyte brothers and lived in the same town.

Certain clubs concentrate their recruitment efforts outside of the UK, for their own reasons. They could choose to focus a little more on their local catchment areas if they wished.

[edit]I should add that it may be time for the FA to look at the 90 minute rule for trainees, and certainly time for them to upgrade their coaching infrastructure. English football is too focused on athleticism instead of skills development.[/edit]

PHB

Certain clubs concentrate their recruitment efforts outside of the UK, for their own reasons. They could choose to focus a little more on their local catchment areas if they wished.

You hit the nail on the head just after that, the problem is the 90 minute rule. In terms of the interests of the club, it's better for a big club to look abroad than look at the 90 minute area. It's cheaper to poach young talent there.

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

I've never accepted that argument TBH.

Michael Carrick could have been had for a little over £3m two years before Utd finally paid £14m (plus £4m+ in extras) if they'd been prepared to take a chance on him. Hell, Arsenal had him lined up as their Viera replacement then pulled out of the deal.

Speaking of Arsenal, rumours abounded that Arsene Wenger wanted to sign Curtis Davies but was put off by the asking price. Of course, he could have got him in as a trainee for nowt seeing as he was mates with the Hoyte brothers and lived in the same town.

If Wenger was omnipotent then that argument would hold water. Everyone has 20-20 vision in hindsight.

Even English 'punts' are overpriced.

It's simple supply and demand. England, home of the so-called 'best league in the world' produces only a very small percentage of the world's best players, so it stands to reason that the top clubs in England, aiming to be the best clubs in the world, will have only a very small percentage of English players among their ranks. However, most English clubs want to have a high percentage of English players among their ranks, so they pay way over the odds to secure the signatures of the limited English resources available.

By the way cson, the prices you posted should be in sterling, not euro.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote:

I've never accepted that argument TBH.

Michael Carrick could have been had for a little over £3m two years before Utd finally paid £14m (plus £4m+ in extras) if they'd been prepared to take a chance on him. Hell, Arsenal had him lined up as their Viera replacement then pulled out of the deal.
[/edit]

There is no quaranteee that Carrick would have developed into the player he is if United had baught him two years ago. (He would not have got the games he did at our feeder club. ) United have always payed over the odds for their players, It's just the way it is .

gustavo

Because the English League is probably the richest , it means that their clubs are under no pressure to selll their best players unless they receive well over the odds bids for them which happened in the cases above , doesnt mean thats the players real valuation.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

There is no quaranteee that Carrick would have developed into the player he is if United had baught him two years ago.

There is no guarantee that Djemba Djemba or Kleberson would have developed into the players that they did...

Or Veron...

Or Forlan...

Them's the breaks.

WhiteWashMan

lennon was bought for 1million from Leeds, yes we paid a lcub record 11.5 million for rebrov.

i know which one id rather have in the team.

it is simple supply and demand.

how much would roy keane have been sold for at the top of his career?
15? 20m?

and its not always the EPL. how about spanish football?
always repors of barca and Real putting in stupid bids.
talk of over 30m for Villa, and 40m for Ronaldo.

now, im not saying the prices for enlgish prices arent over inflated, i do think they are, but i think they are when yo uget players are at the top.

again, lennon and carrick being prime examples of buying for the future. hell, wengers got a whole bloody team of them playing in cup games!

its teams like chelsea and utd and liverpool that buy surplus players at over inflated prices.
and in this case, its not chelseas fault, its just that everyone knows that they have a limitless pot of cash. or at least, they used to!

Zebra3

cson wrote:

Had a discussion with a mate about this today, do you think that the price tags put on english players is ridiculous?

No. If there are suckers willing to pay those prices, why shouldn't the selling club look for the highest possible price?

PHB

its teams like chelsea and utd and liverpool that buy surplus players at over inflated prices.
and in this case, its not chelseas fault, its just that everyone knows that they have a limitless pot of cash. or at least, they used to!

Well, teams at the top can't afford to go a couple of seasons without challenging for anything. Wenger is in a very nice position as Mourinho pointed out.

While the market was inflated before Chelsea came along, it has inflated even more since they came along, since they have no conception of money.

WhiteWashMan

well, thats the point, isnt it.

i mean, if a club wants the best winger in the world becuase they challenge for honours every year, then they will have to pay for it.

its simple economics. the one thing i dont understand is why it appears to have gone so wrong for the manutd youth policy.

the club that brought us beckham, giggs, scholes, butt, et al, doesnt appear to be bringing anyone through now.

the combined selling total of that lot alone at the peak of their careers must be worth over 200m. hell, look at how much the yanks are paying for a past it player in wages etc.

gucci

el rabitos wrote:

yes. and futhermore, its christiano ronaldo's fault.

i see your a subscriber to the eamonn dunphy school of thought!!

PHB

its simple economics. the one thing i dont understand is why it appears to have gone so wrong for the manutd youth policy.

Well, those players were able to emerge in a very weird way.
During the year all those players got the experience they needed to develop, Cantona essentially won us the league. This meant Fergie was able to allow them to develop, because the strength of Cantona allowed us to do both.
Because the league has become so competitive, you can no longer win anything with kids really. The levels that Arsenal, then Chelsea twice, then United this year have put out, just can't be done by youngsters anymore, and one incredible player just isn't enough.

Because of this, it's been really hard for Fergie to bring youngsters into the team. He can't give them the chances they really need to succedd. Jones and McShane were titantic for the reserves, and did really well on their loan spells, but Fergie just didn't have the opportunities to blood them like he could when the league standerd was lower. Now they are playing for championship teams, playing superbly, and look like they are going to make it as class players.

Also, the 90 minute rule means that the recruitment of players like Giggs just costs too much money and isn't worth it for United anymore. This means that they, for a while, had no decent youth policy, because they were stuck within the 90 minute rule, and their scouting systems were entirely focused on England. Now the youth system is beginning to produce more, as it has been able to adjust to the international market as is required.
Players like Evans, Rossi, Pique, and even these Brazilian twins are now what United's youth policy is focusing on, and it's just now beginning to bear fruit, (in terms of Rossi and Pique)

cson

Carrick is good but in the scheme of things is he worth £20 million (Sterling Pepe ) He's relatively unproven in terms of honors, I mean what has he won? (He will more than likely win a prem this year though)

The major problem in my eyes is the £20 million + being quoted for the Darren Bents of this world. He's a good player but £20 million :eek: Ever so slightly ridiculous.

As for Ashley Young, Gareth Bale, Theo Walcott et al.. the prices paid and motioned at (For Bale) are crazy. If Aston Villa invested the £10 ish million they paid for Young into their Youth Academy it could yield a lot more than one player.

Being an Arsenal fan the two that stick in my mind are £9 million Franny Jeffers and £6 million Richard Wright. Value for money? :rolleyes:

WhiteWashMan

i think we can all look at players that were a complete waste of money. god knows spurs had enough of them, but liverpool under houllier was just silly.

if a player was priced at 5m, then houllier was bound to purchase them, and immediately play them out of position for half the season, wondering what he was doing wrong.

sure all benitez did in his first season was put all the players back in their right positions!

with regards the youth policy, i do know that spurs keep sending their youth squads out on loan down the leagues, or overseas, but i cant think of any players of note coming up through the ranks.
phil ifil has played a few games, and charlie lee has been on the bench a few times. i think spurs have changed their policy to purchase youth players who have already managed to get into the first team lower down the league. the likes of dawson and lennon and huddleston.

this would be my preference after bringin players thorugh the youth policy. id love to see the lower leagues in the UK bring through top class players, and then seeing them go into the EPL. i think it will only make the british and irish games stronger.
while i have nothing against foreign imports, i really would love to see more engligh and especially irish players getting the chance, but i dont think grass roots level football in ireland is up to the task.

cson

It seems to be another trend Mr Wenger has started, buying the youths in.
Although Arsenal had some good players that are making it at other clubs (Steve Sidwell and David Bentley come to mind)

As regards grass roots football in Ireland? A bit of a problem. Its impacting on the national team now cos we just don't have the quality players we used to have (Keane, McGrath etc). Anyway thats off topic.

AFAIK, Wenger did try to buy Curtis Davies off West Brom but found the £10 million-ish asking price a bit steep for a player with only one decent premiership season under his belt.

gustavo

cson wrote:

AFAIK, Wenger did try to buy Curtis Davies off West Brom but found the £10 million-ish asking price a bit steep for a player with only one decent premiership season under his belt.

Do you not think that was the very purpose of the asking price?

cson

Just to refer to the thread topic > Do you not think that £10 million pounds is absolute madness to ask for a player with one decent season under his belt?

leninbenjamin

people are also forgetting about the marketing potential for players. i think that's one of the reasons english players are so expensive, clubs stand to gain a lot more revenue from such activities in the domestic market where english players are a lot better known than their foreign equivalents. and of course the extensive tabloid coverage of players in England would increase this...

Zebra3

cson wrote:

Just to refer to the thread topic > Do you not think that £10 million pounds is absolute madness to ask for a player with one decent season under his belt?

And again to answer the thread topic.

NO!

Not if idiots are prepared to pay it.

redspider

There are a few key points about evaluations.

Young english players tend to have a higher price tag on them because more often than not they have proven themselves (to some extent) in the english league. Its well known that there are different styles between the leagues, and different cultures, so bringing a young hot talent in from Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain, Africa, Brazil or elsewhere may or may not work out as it should. When the english clubs buy an english player (and indeed when a spanish club buys a young spanish player) they know what they are getting.

Valuations on young players tend to be higher due to their resale value, so a player bought at 30 should be cheaper than a player bought at 22 for the same level of effectiveness, marketability, etc.

Players valuations depend on the remaining years of their contracts. For example, with only 6 months to go, the player could easily go on a Bosman in just 6 months time. So, its the remaining amount of years on their contract which is valued.

Also a factor to consider are salary costs. Its possible for a club to have the funds to pay for the transfer of a player but not to have the funds to pay for their salary for 4 or 5 years. Many yound players are at the lower levels of the salary scale so are good value, ie: the 22 yr old will be cheaper than the 30 year old who is now thinking of a pension!

Evaluations will continue to change depending on supply and demand and ambitions of owners, etc. When Chelski in the shape of Abramovitch wants to win something at all costs, it distorts the market, not only for themselves but for everyone else. The big clubs distort the market because they can pay over the odds, Real Madrid, Man Utd and the others in the global top-20.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the one thing i dont understand is why it appears to have gone so wrong for the manutd youth policy. the club that brought us beckham, giggs, scholes, butt, et al, doesnt appear to be bringing anyone through now. the combined selling total of that lot alone at the peak of their careers must be worth over 200m.

Times have changed and due to global sourcing of youth players there is less of an emphasis at a clubs youth system. Indeed, most clubs now see it as a waste of time and statistics will tell you why. A scouting system can bring in 'near-finished' youths at 17 or 18 and you can get the cream of the crop if you have some money. In other words, utilise the youth systems at all the other clubs as a resource. And due to Bosman-effects, you will get your players in time. Loyalty plays second fiddle to money. That was the choice Everton had with Rooney. Keep him for a couple of years and let him walk on a Bosman, or off-load him for some money. The same principal applies to other players.

As for the Giggs et al sequence, that was more down to the 3-buses in a row phenomenon and luck rather than anything else. Liverpool have had the likes of Owen and Gerrard, but by and large you dont get 6 players coming through at the same time more or less. Thats why Hansen said "they'll never win with kids", because he presumed that they would be your normal bunch of kids. The kids worked out and the rest as they say is history.

Redspider

WhiteWashMan

that all makes sense, but i dont think there are any reasons there to downgrade your youth policy.

everton got a handsome amount of money for an under 20 year old.
if you want a business reason, that alone is worth the investment.

but i do agree with the proven player thing in england. you play 2 seasons in league 2 and you know the lads going to have the stamina and be tough!
the championship is the breeding place these days.

gustavo

cson wrote:

Just to refer to the thread topic > Do you not think that £10 million pounds is absolute madness to ask for a player with one decent season under his belt?

Yup Probably but thats why they quoted that price , ie they dont want to sell him.

event

cson wrote:

Carrick is good but in the scheme of things is he worth £20 million (Sterling Pepe ) He's relatively unproven in terms of honors, I mean what has he won? (He will more than likely win a prem this year though)

he wasnt bought for £20 million, AFIAK it was £14 million+ bonuses

and what has winning anything got to do with buying players?
Are they only good purchases if they have won something?

PHB

i dont think there are any reasons there to downgrade your youth policy.

Because it's not cost effective anymore, except maybe for the London clubs. Because of the 90 minute rule, it costs a ****load of money to get any hot talent from outside that area. Therefore the clubs can either focus on their 90 minute area, or they can focus abroad. These are the choices that the FA have given clubs, and to be honest, I think they are beginning to see the fruits of it.

Aside from Lennon and Rooney, what real top class players are emerging in this new generation?

mcgarnicle

I think one of the reasons that young English players are valued a lot higher is that they aren't likely to go running off to Spain anytime soon. If Arsenal buy Theo Walcott for 12 million then there is a fair chance that, based on the record of previous English players, he will stay in the Premiership for the bulk, if not all, of his career.

Compare this to the other young players around today, we all know Ronaldo is on the way out of Man U, if not this season or next then the one after. Fabregas said recently how he loves Barcelona and wants to go back someday. I'm also sure I heard Xabi Alonso say something similar and I even read an interview a few months back where Rossi said how much he'd love to go to AC Milan at some stage, this is before he has made any mark on United.

All this means that while English players might cost more to buy initially if they do come good that initial risk is paid back by the decent chance of them staying at that club. Compare Ronaldo's comments about wanting to play in Spain with noises Rooney has already made intimating at a long career at United. A foreign 18 yr old won't cost the same amount simply because the risk is the greater (as has already been pointed out due to a lack of experience in English football) and, should he turn out to be something special, ala Ronaldo/Fabregas, there is a fair chance they will be off to Spain or whatever before they are 25.

So, in answer to the original question, yes a young English player is worth more than his foreign counterpart... unless of course he turns out to be rubbish, but that applies to anyone.