Was just looking over the Arsenal Blog on the Guardian website and realised that Wenger has spent £10-15m on Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. This transfer does not seem to have generated nearly as much uproar compared to some of Liverpool's signings. I wonder why this is? Henderson cost £16-20m depending on who you listen to and has a full season in the Premier League where he showed varied levels of ability. Some parts of his game were brilliant while his age showed when his form dipped. Surely then £16-20m for a player with a full season in the top flight is nothing if compared to a 17 year old with no experience for £10-15m? If you then compare that to Downing (£20m with many years experience and consitent perfomance) it seems even more unbalanced. It is interesting how one of the transfers inspired articles and oppinion and the other seems to be slipping under the radar a little. Do you think that Liverpool are a club that attracts attention, or that Wengers 'youth policy' is seen as so brilliant that noone questions it. Also didnt Walcott cost £6m rising to £12 million in 2006? Thats 5 years of player price increases to take into account. Walcott is a talent for sure I am not doubting that (if Wenger would play him as a striker where his finishing and pace would work) My point is not that all of Daglish' signings are worth the money (they are all about 10m over priced in reality) but that they attract alot of negative attention when other signings are equally expensive. -DiscoRave- ps: my friends and I have come up with his formula for English players; Base Price a: Is the player English? +£5m b: Is the player below 25? +5m c: England cap? +£5m Therefore Andy Carroll; £35m - a - b - c = £20m. (still alot but more realistic) Henderson: £20m (for arguments sake) - a - b - c = £5m. Downing: £20m - a - c = £10m So take into account English inflation and your not too far off
Thanks for the post and welcome to the site I agree that the spot light has really been on our spending in the market this summer - this is mainly due to recent events at the club. My view on it is that sometimes you have to pay over the odds (Carroll for example) and sometimes you get players on the cheap (Enrique + Adam for example). This is due to many things (as you listed) but either way it balances itself out. At the end of the day we needed strengthening, the new owners knew that and were happy to spend big money. Am i concerned we may of spent too much on the likes of Carroll? Not in the slightest, i would be more concerned if we hadn't of strengthened the squad. At the end of the day we mugged Chelsea off anyway so that's the Carroll deal sorted. Henderson and Downing, although expensive, i feel were the right people we needed to bring in, so good on everyone at the club to make this happen. The rival fans will always try and bring Liverpool down - we're used to it by now and it's boring to be honest! What we're be looking at is the total amount of points we have come the end of the season. Lastly, i couldn't care less if Arsenal paid 50 mil for Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. It's not my club nor my money so really not that interested to be honest
I think Arsenal fans are more concerned about players they need to go straight in to the team rather than someone who will take 3 years or so to break in.
If Arsenal sign Dann Wenger will be praised for bringing in such a young talent to bolster the squad. If we buy him it will just be another over priced English young player. You are spot on to point out your observations in this article, rival fans love to piss on our parade. But before a ball has been kicked they are writing the team and individual players off...let the football do the talking I say.
Take two examples. Man United signed Phil Jones and Ashley Young and Liverpool signed Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing. Phil Jones was seen as a ''major coup'' and clever business by Alex Ferguson, whilst Jordan Henderson was seen as over-priced and a risk. Both are more or less the same age and have the same level or lack of experience. Both were involved in Englands failed under 21 team, yet it was Henderson that was attacked. The same applies to Ashley Young and Stewart Downing, one is seen as good business and the other is seen as over-priced,yet its been proved by statistics that its Downing and NOT Young that is the more consistent performer. I'm convinced its an ''Anti Liverpool'' thing, Liverpool aren't allowed to be competitive or spend money. There is an unwritten law there somewhere.
Its the perfect comparison. Why has the signing of Phil Jones been seen as a ''Coup'' and Henderson is seen as a risk? Both are as unproven as each other.
Whose reality? Do you think you could buy one of the top five chance creators in the league for £10m if he wasn't English? Your formula is rough and overvaluing elements. Players aren't signed just because they're English or under 25, not to the extent of £10m anyway. English and U25 are tick boxes on a long list. The premium is real and there for a reason of value. English players have more value to clubs: they're already settled, they speak the language and they're less likely to bugger off back to Spain. These all affect their value and (indirectly) their football. Any player's age would affect their price. Apply your formula to Mata at a fee of £22m: Winger so in demand - £5m Under 25 - £5m World Cup winner - £5m Fan & media hype - £5m So *in reality* he's really only worth £2m.
Whiskey Nose never pays over the odds for average players according to Ex United players, United fans, the media and Harry Redknapp.
