I don't agree with this, I think the fees definitely change someone's view on a transfer. If we'd paid 3 million instead of 12 for Shane Long I don't think there would have been anyone moaning. As an incoming player it was a good bit of business, but an extortionate fee can put some fans off. FWIW I was only using Long as an example, and think he'll be a good player for us. Another example is 50 million for David Luiz when you can sign Fabregas for 20, some clubs are much better at negotiating fees than others.
I am going to get into an argument with myself by quoting this bbc article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28984274 which uses as its source The CIES Football Observatory, "which is part-funded by the sport's governing body FIFA and affiliated with the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland, has come up with a statistical model which estimates the transfer value of every player in the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France. The model considers a number of factors including previous transfer fees, a player's age, length of contract remaining, level of the club team played for, number of matches played, goals scored, number of assists, dribbles and tackles. International appearances, with consideration of which country the footballer has played for, are also taken into account. The Football Observatory's valuations have been accurate in predicting actual transfer fees in more than 80% of cases, according to the organisation's co-founder Raffaele Poli. He says this demonstrates that the transfer market is rational. The model valued teenage left back Luke Shaw at around £27m".
I agree, but you sort of missed my point. I was trying to say that Chelsea signing Fabregas is the best deal (IMO) as he is the best fit for what they really needed. A better fit than any other player transferred this window (Diego Costa may push that close) And what is wrong with David Luiz at 50m???
Oh right, yeah, I agree. Chelsea and City both got exactly what they needed. Same can't be said for United.
Van Gaal (am I the only one who thinks he looks like a spitting image puppet) is either a genius or fool. While their attacking options will certainly scare teams I just don't get his tactics. He's also allowed Man U's defence to look fragile, and lack depth/cover. While I was a Shaw fan he will not plug the holes when fit. I do feel they are one serious injury away from possible meltdown. Got all the Sky and media attention with Falcao but a poor window for them. Best must be us. Stronger squad but also wiped out the transfer deficit the media and Pompey fans were getting their knickers in a twist over.
This transfer window really is pony isn't it. Extensions on extensions and all well into the season. The door should close firmly the night before the season kicks off.
Everything I was going to say has been covered already in this thread. So I just chuck in a couple of agreements instead. Costa best, Lakaku & Shaw big big risks, Taider the work shy home sickie loan deal breaker wins hands down. Bit sick of all the love for Hull from the media though, we'll see how Bruce manages to keep the Fatem Ben Arfa & the uber talented but rarely seen Gaston happy.....time will tell. If transfers include gaffers, then we win hands down by the way.
Don't understand how Taider was a bad signing. I would have been (and now I am) happy just getting Osvaldo off the team. The fact that we were able to finagle Taider out of it was a bonus. Taider has some talent and if he'd applied himself it could have worked. It was worth a shot. It didn't end up working, so we sent him back. It cost us nothing.
Hull brought almost an entirely new team xxx Lenihan - Maguire - Dawson - Robinson Livermore - Diame Snodgrass - Gastón RamÃrez - Ben Arfa Abel Hernández
I'm pretty sure we've had this debate before, probably regarding Ramirez. I'm sure I remember you saying that we shouldn't judge Ramirez so harshly because of his cost, whereas a few of us said that that is exactly the reason why he could be judged in different terms to a cheaper player (not his fault, of course). Anyway, I disagree! How good a signing a player is must surely be some kind of formula like (ability x contribution)/cost. Even the best player can cost too much and you would get better overall value by spending the money elsewhere. Of course, if money is not even a consideration for the buyer, then you could be right.
If a club has pretty limited funds, the price of a player matters if it stops you buying a better player or puts you in queer street. I would suggest, that for the very first time, money was no object to Saints. We weren't going to buy Falcao, but overpaying for a couple of players that we wanted had little effect on us. We came out with 30 mill profit (if you only count purchase price), so if Long does what is expected of him it doesn't matter if we paid a few mill too much.
If it were up to me, I'd do away with the transfer windows all together. Teams can trade freely as much as they want when ever they want. This would take away the pressure and get rid of phenomenons like panic buying, and probably situations like we just had with our entire team being stripped in one window. Maybe teams might actually grow organically. Who knows how far the Southampton Family might have gone?
An open transfer window means that poorer clubs could never relax...imagine continuous Morgan speculation throughout the season. Might never happen, but the press would go on and on. At least now, clubs and players know where they are until January.
Best for me are Hull, Chelsea and Sunderland Best Transfers - Gareth Barry 2 mil, Sandro 6 mil, Fabregas 30 mil Worst Transfer - Ross McCormack. Why spend so much on one player and fill the rest of their team with youngsters. Could've built a decent team with that money
If a player doesn't work out, he doesn't work out. It is irrelevant as to his cost unless you want to say "we wasted so much money" but for me, signing a player is about how well that player fits the teams needs and then delivers on that. I will just use a caveat here and say that I don't think money is not important, but that I don't take it in to account when deciding if a player is a successful transfer or not. I decide it after the event, by looking back and saying whether that player was a success or not, or by saying before he plays a lot that I think a player is the right fit for the team. There is a difference between "value for money" and "a successful/good signing." If value for money is to be used, then Chappers probably beats every Saints player hands down at 50k, but would you say he was a better signing than Jack Cork at 750k?
Don't forget why it was introduced in the first place. The problem was that, for example, if a team were struggling near the end of a season they could simply but their way out of trouble. The thought behind the window was that you had to get your team in place before the season started so from there on in it was down to good coaching (ha ha ha). If they want to continue with the window idea they should get rid of the January one to start with. They should also end the summer one before the season starts. For a bit of fun how about, have a transfer window that lasts just one day, in the middle of July. That I would watch on Sky!
I understand what you are saying and you are not wrong. However, my point is slightly different. Compare say, Ramirez with Chaplow. Chaplow only cost £50k so he comes in with relatively low expectations. We "'expect' him to be a £50k footballer. He plays well and surpasses those expectations. Ramirez, we 'expect' to be a multi-million pound player. He cost 25 times more than Chaplow so it is not unreasonable that we should expect more from him and so, inevitably, he will be judged by his price tag. In actual fact had he been able to give to the team as much as Chaplow, I'd have been reasonably happy.
