Undisclosed Transfer Fees

Lex Luthor

is there any reason why clubs don't disclose the transfer fee when a player is signed or sold? It's always baffled me as to why this happens.

Take for instance the latest transfer of Reyes to Atletico...

Mr Alan

Guess Athletico just don't want people to know how much they paid, maybe they think if they are percieved as having buckets of money to spend - people will bump up the prices everytime they try and buy a player

smackbunnybaby

millersangel wrote:

Guess Athletico just don't want people to know how much they paid, maybe they think if they are percieved as having buckets of money to spend - people will bump up the prices everytime they try and buy a player

this is correct.

and you cant also rule that some clubs like sheffield wednesday for instance couldn't negotiate a contract if there life depended on it and dont want the fans to revolt for selling their best player for peanuts.

some clubs which are financially strapped have to accept any decent offer to help reduce debt, even if it doesnt match the players market value

Guy:Incognito

Are all transfer prices listed in th epress etc not just guesstimates anyway? ie all transfer fees are pretty much undisclosed.

~Rebel~

im not totally sure about this but I think if the club is on the stock market they have to give out the details of a transfer to the shareholders, and thus easily accessible to the Media and so would be the actual values.

Private owned clubs can do what they want, but it makes sense to not release details, keeping your cards close to your chest so to speak. Here we just get estimates.

Mitch Connor

Stekelly wrote:

Are all transfer prices listed in th epress etc not just guesstimates anyway? ie all transfer fees are pretty much undisclosed.

don't think so - any publicly listed club has to give this info out as it is relevant to share prices as far as i know.

mike65

If you watch the list of ins and outs on SSN, most seem to be undisclosed these days. Only two of Liverpools Ins are priced I think.

Mike.

Vokes

Was looking at this recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6733191.stm
And there appears to be loads of undisclosed transfers - Hargreaves, Richardson, Toress, Lucas, da Silva, etc...

astrofool

Arsenal have always had undisclosed fee's. United used to be all public, but now not (privately owned), although they do still list all agents fee's. It also means that the other clubs don't know how much you have to bargain with, giving you more power to negotiate, but there's also a newer face to it with fans of various clubs using how much a player cost to justify their team, especially if the team underperforms, than they can always say another team spent more than them. If they win, then they claim they spent the money better than anyone else.

Undisclosed fee's can be used to maintain that illusion, just look at the arguments over how much Torres/Nani/Anderson/Hargreaves cost their respective teams, and people making excel sheets of how much each manager has spent, and then the disputes over how far it should go back or not.

kaisersose77

Yep Arsenal's transfers have always being that way, take that Croatian/Brazilian they bought, the papers were saying he cost 16.5m at first as they hadnt a clue how much Arsenal payed.

Galvasean

According to Zagreb Eduardo costed 16million. Arsenal say its closer to 8. Its kind of annoying not knowing.