Yeah but burnley and gillingham are getting some of the money... think from 12 mill burnely were getting £3 million so....
Hence I said "overvalued at 12m". Fans never know the real fees unless the clubs confirm it (if indeed they choose to). I think this will be an undisclosed one somehow! What I am saying is if it is 12m, based on what he has achieved so far in the game, its over the top. I don't think many would dispute that. We did know with Cisse really. He had a very consistent goalscoring record in a top class European league. His fee ranges from 7.5m to 9m depending on who you choose to believe. Good value for a man who at 26 was in his prime years and had scored 37 in 65 in a tough division for a lowly side, and one we were quoted 15m for the previous summer. To be honest its a bit of a crazy comparison to make, Cisse is far greater value than Fletcher and a better player. I don't really understand the last bit. You are correct to say you don't know the value to Sunderland because he hasn't kicked a ball yet. However you can assess what a player is worth at the time of transfer by looking at his whole career. The cold reality is that he has scored 22 in 61 games for Wolves, 10 league goals and 12 league goals respectively in two seasons. Without being disrespectful paying 12m for that is over the top whcihever way you choose to look at it. It matters not as I say because Ellis Short is minted and can afford to pay over the top to give his manager what he wants. I actually think he is a pretty good player and good signing. His value is probably more around the 7.5m mark but a number of factors have pushed it up. Wolves being under no pressure to sell, Sunderland being desperate, Wolves owing a percentage to his previous club, and of course Wolves overpaid in the first place.
Cisse was a gamble at £9m but has more than paid off. If he continues to score goals this season (and there is nothing at all to suggest he wont), he will easily be valued at £20m + next season. Fletcher is less of a gamble imo but £12m is probably £2m more than I'd like to have paid in all honesty. However, if as I expect, he scores goals and leads the line for us as he has at Burnley and Wolves (and there is nothing at all to suggest he wont), he too will be valued at the £20m mark. Two very different investments and 2 very different players but both could be invaluable to both clubs this season imo and worth far more than their original purchase price.
Not really. Whether he was 7.5m or 9m, 37 in 65 in a top class european league is great pedigree and you're just paying the market value for that kind of player really. He was almost guaranteed to score goals, just maybe not as many as he did last season. Anyone who can score more than one every two games in a top european league is going to cost 10m plus. Fletcher is much more of a gamble based on what he has achieved. That is tempered by him having already proven he can score in the PL but he still represents a bigger gamble at the rumoured fees.
Wait until the season is over first before judging him, if he bangs in 15+ then you boys are wrong. If he is a failure and it goes tits up, that's when you can gloat. Give him a chance to show he is worth the fee, is all I am saying.
All this talk of silly spending is way off the mark upto now we have only bought one player thiswindow and none in the last one. We have sold a number of high wager earners and made good deals for Bent and Henderson over the last season and a half. It would be interesting to work out the balance of incomming and out going transfers from the Bent transfer to now I dont think we will be any where near the top of thespenders. The problem at Leeds was that they spent but did not get money in from sales plus they did not have clauses in the contracts to cut the wage bill if they did not get Champions League never mind relegation. All in all there is no way you can compere Leeds to us!
Folks I'm in town with the bairn.but when I get home Iam Gona tell you a true story abouts Leeds united signing of a player called Seth Johnson, you might remember him. When you hear it, it will make your toes curl !!
Burnley were due 15% of any profit made by Wolves. IF we paid 12m for him then they are due to get £750.000.
It does seem that £12m is on the steep side but whilst cost is objective (something costs a set amount) value is subjective. The value of Fletcher to a Sunderland team, who have a good set up and a solid mid-table ability but look light up front, is higher than his value would be to Newcastle. Even if he only scores 10 goals this season, if that's 3-4 more than Ji would have banged in from the same games then that could be the difference between 8th and 15th. It's a tight table in the middle and you're paying for someone to tip the fine margins - i don't think you can just say "he's worth x amount" as that's going to vary depending on who you are. He'd probably be worth £0 to Man Utd as he wouldn't play.
Aged 15 Ian Porterfield had a trial at Leeds United but returned home as he didn't like it there. In 1967 he moved to SAFC where he loved it, the rest is history! Got to love a Leeds supporter going on about transfers. Cantona the man who turned Man U into the force they are now, Leeds to Man U for £1,200,000. (You think they may have sold him to cheap?)
Nowt wrong with the OP, Leeds fans no more than most about a giant club being taken apart, Leeds in League One being the ultimate '**** me' showing what can happen. That said, our owner is a multi-billionaire, self made, so long as he is in the hot seat, we don't have a realistic issue (unless we start going Man City crazy and paying 100k plus a week etc). Fletcher's fee hasn't even spent the Bent installment & Gyan fee, let alone the massive sponsorship (again, £5million more than Fletch even at the top press speculated price), or the Adidas money (approx £2million per year). As often, I agree fully with Terry, QPR could easily end up bang in the ****, Fernandes, wonderful businessman, but he's not a billionaire, he's reckoned to have a couple hundred million. Now, he'll be making money from the F1 team, or at least close to break even through sponsorship & TV, but an airline can drop money at any rate, I worked for BA through 9/11, & again through the crash, a year after record profits, when there were genuine possibilities of bankruptcy. If anything goes tits up with Air Asia, QPR will be the first thing Fernandes jettisons, and finding a buyer for a club in a small stadium with an unsustainable business model & wage bill will be a tough task. If's, buts & maybes, but always a possibility for a man who's money relies on such a volatile industry.
Not sure why ur all jumping on the OP back, He did put "and they still don't learn" in the title meaning learn from our mistakes! We have been through the threat of extinction and we are still suffering at the hands of Ridsdale and overspending (which we loved at the time) no way would Bates be involved with our football club if it wasn't for him!!! As for the Seth Johnson embarrassment as the story goes: Seth and his agent discussed the contract before going in to see ridsdale, expecting 25k per week max but wouldve taken 20k per week. Without saying a word Ridsdale came out with you can have 60k per week! Not bad for a **** player! Leeds United didn't need to sign the likes of Fowler,Ferdinand,johnson,Rush but we did anyway!!
The Seth tale is a wee bit better than that mate! As you said, but they offered Seth 50k, supposedly Seth & his agents jaws dropped in shock, at which point Ridsdale, misreading the signs, goes 'ok, 60k, not a penny more'. ****ing brilliant, haha.
Same point as I made above though, the fee you pay for someone is not only based on what they might do, its what they already done. There is no evidence to suggest that Fletcher is worth 12m plus. He could well take the league by storm and score a boat load and justify the 12m fee and more. At this stage though only a Sunderland fan would suggest you have not overpaid. I actually like the player and think he will do well. Being honest as a Newcastle fan I'd have preferred you didn't get him because I think he is a talented lad with a good attitude towards the game! Will he justify 12m (if that is correct)? I'd have to err on the side of caution and say maybe not. But I think he'll get 10-15 goals and will improve with time. If he starts getting more than 15 leagues goals a season then he'll be worth the 12m and more to Sunderland. Nothing to do with gloating, just an honest assessment of where the lad is at and whether that represents good value. Its not even really in question that you've overpaid, the majority of you on this board have said so yourselves over the last 6 weeks that he is not worth those type of fees. The point is irrelevant eventually because the bottom line is that 12m is a drop in the ocean for Short.
Why is there no evidence to suggest he's worth £12million, I'm intrigued? A 1 in 3 over 3 top flight seasons striker, aged 25, is £12million not realistic? I know Liverpool are ****ing hapless with fees, but they paid £15million for Joe Allen, what the ****? I think £!2 is ok, a wee bit high maybe, but not an absolute rapeage.
Forget Liverpool, they're a bunch of lunatics and are no basis for a discussion like this. Seriously they have no idea where to pitch in the market. As already mentioned you have Cisse 7.5m-9m. Ba - free. Jelavic 5m (unproven in a top league to be fair but was more than a goal a game). Odemwingie 1 in 3 record in a decent russian league 4m (less according to some sources). Long is a 1 in 3 type guy, albeit fairly young. 5m. Giroud 12m 1 in 2. Dijbril Cisse say when he moved to the greek club was about 1 in 3 (he was more 1 in 2 when he was 21-24) - 8m. Defoe cost Spurs about 6m as a 1 in 3 striker. When they bought him back he was more like 1 in 2 and the fee bumped to 15m. Looking back over time (and fees have not changed much lately), a 1 in 3 striker typically costs you around 5m-8m. A 1 in 2 striker will cost you 10m plus. A better than 1 in 2 with obvious class (RVP, Rooney, Aguero etc) will cost you 20m plus. I've tried to pick players of a similar age group because otherwise it get skewed by potential or lack of it. 12m is excessive but as I say you have to factor in how desperate for goals is the buying club, how desperate for money is the selling club, what is the contract scenario, how much does the buying manager want that specific player, its a massive list and you can't just base it on goals to games ratios. The reality is Sunderland have no guaranteed source of goals so they have had to succumb to Wolves wishes. Saha is unlikely to stay fit and the rest are all in need of development. I think you have some decent young talents in Ji and Wickham.
Pretty fair argument mate, but add to that 'how many are realistically available'. I'd suggest a lot of your list were moving, and maybe available, at similar times, could be a factor? That said, I've agreed it's on the high side, but I don't think we've been totally arse ****ed. Time will tell.
None of you have been arse ****ed. Time will tell for Short. I think some underestimate how rich the guy is. I know its "your" club but the reality of modern football clubs and these billionnaire owners is that its not fans money anymore. Provided you get good players to watch on a Saturday afternoon, it matters not whether they cost nowt or 60m. It used to be the fans felt they had a stake because of their season tickets fees and merchandise etc. Sometimes in modern football these billionnaires just decide they want something. Realistically available definetly does come under it. There were others like that Kone lad etc but how many were realistically available to O'Neill. He prefers british lads, always has done.
