Dahnsouff Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 1 minute ago, honeybradger said: No one paid any more than £1mil for Vardy though. Does that mean he was never worth more than £1mil? Of course not, therefore the point that Coolhandfox made that Sara needs a £60mil transfer to be worth £60mil is incorrect, you aren't arguing against me, you are arguing tangentially to me for no reason. Why do you think @coolhandfox is incorrect? Unless you are gaming FFP then you only pay what you are willing to pay, and this must therefore be their worth to the buyer, their value. The fact their value increases after this is irrelevant to the price at that time. You are time travelling with your valuations and @coolhandfox is fixing the price at a point in time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 1 minute ago, Sly said: It comes back to my original point I made before pre season even started. Spending large sums of money doesn’t equal success. If we sign Allison, De Bruyne, Messi, Ronaldo into our academy as 17 year olds, we aren’t paying that. Football is sort of changing l, largely due to PSR I believe, so transfer fees will come back down. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay. However one man’s junk, is another man’s gold. You could spent £200m on me, it doesn’t offer value for money though. Although I’d likely score more than 25 goals over 250 appearances (I’m looking at you Ayew). fells like West Ham are trying to ignore PSR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 8 minutes ago, honeybradger said: No one paid any more than £1mil for Vardy though. Does that mean he was never worth more than £1mil? Of course not, therefore the point that Coolhandfox made that Sara needs a £60mil transfer to be worth £60mil is incorrect, you aren't arguing against me, you are arguing tangentially to me for no reason. you have to factor in the massive increase in TV money in the last 5-6 years. That automatically increases what people are willing to pay for a player… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybradger Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August (edited) 27 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: Why do you think @coolhandfox is incorrect? Unless you are gaming FFP then you only pay what you are willing to pay, and this must therefore be their worth to the buyer, their value. The fact their value increases after this is irrelevant to the price at that time. You are time travelling with your valuations and @coolhandfox is fixing the price at a point in time. You are missing my point entirely and arguing for the sake of being a contrarian. It feels like that skit from Monty Python where he goes to an argument clinic. I said "You do not need to be sold for £60mil to be worth £60mil" CoolHandFox disagreed and said "Your worth what someone is willing to pay." My point is exactly what you are saying, that the values of a player fluctuates and is based on the performance on the pitch. Coolhandfox's point is that a club has to pay that amount for a player for that player's value to be defined. With CoolHandFox's definition how do you define a player's value if they have not transferred to a club recently? You don't, it is still defined by the last amount that was paid for that player and is therefore fixed at a time in the past, therefore the definition is flawed. I gave examples where that definition is flawed and you disagreed with those examples (because the logic is flawed) and therefore agreed with me. Edited 4 August by honeybradger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimJams Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August Just now, honeybradger said: You are missing my point entirely and arguing for the sake of being a contrarian. It feels like that skit from Monty Python where he goes to an argument clinic. No it doesn't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybradger Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August Just now, JimJams said: No it doesn't. Yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxinNotts Posted 4 August Author Share Posted 4 August He’s behind you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StriderHiryu Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 25 minutes ago, MPH said: fells like West Ham are trying to ignore PSR The 100M they got for Rice will help them out a bit I think. Some of that they spent last season, but with some good accounting, they should have a bit to play with. Each time a "mega" sale happens for a smaller club, they are able to put a good squad together and make a go of it for a few seasons. - We sold Maguire, then got 5th twice and an FA Cup. - Villa sold Grealish, brought in Emery and made Champions League. - Brighton got 6th after selling a ton of players and their manager to Chelsea. Though since they sold Caceido and McAllister they took a step back. But might be ones to watch this season as they spent a lot. - West Ham sold Rice and now this season are spending big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 1 minute ago, StriderHiryu said: The 100M they got for Rice will help them out a bit I think. Some of that they spent last season, but with some good accounting, they should have a bit to play with. Each time a "mega" sale happens for a smaller club, they are able to put a good squad together and make a go of it for a few seasons. - We sold Maguire, then got 5th twice and an FA Cup. - Villa sold Grealish, brought in Emery and made Champions League. - Brighton got 6th after selling a ton of players and their manager to Chelsea. Though since they sold Caceido and McAllister they took a step back. But might be ones to watch this season as they spent a lot. - West Ham sold Rice and now this season are spending big. if they were spending it last season then it will count towards last seasons accounts. Wether they have the money or not, they still have to stay within PSR limits.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 4 minutes ago, honeybradger said: You are missing my point entirely and arguing for the sake of being a contrarian. It feels like that skit from Monty Python where he goes to an argument clinic. I said "You do not need to be sold for £60mil to be worth £60mil" CoolHandFox disagreed and said "Your worth what someone is willing to pay." My point is exactly what you are saying, that the values of a player fluctuates and is based on the performance on the pitch. Coolhandfox's point is that a club has to pay that amount for a player for that player's value to be defined. With CoolHandFox's definition how do you define a player's value if they have not transferred to a club recently? You don't, it is still defined by the last amount that was paid for that player and is therefore fixed at a time in the past, therefore the definition is flawed. I gave examples where that definition is flawed and you disagreed with those examples (because the logic is flawed) and therefore agreed with me. You call me a contrarian because you do not like being debated with, but that is not my problem, and if it helps, your argument is now true as you have redefined the metrics. If there is no referencable transfer fee, then it’s a guess or as we like to call it, TransferMrkt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimJams Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August They have to be careful, as does anyone propping up their numbers with a big sale, because once that drops out of the accounts, you're fxxked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybradger Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: You call me a contrarian because you do not like being debated with, but that is not my problem, and if it helps, your argument is now true as you have redefined the metrics. If there is no referencable transfer fee, then it’s a guess or as we like to call it, TransferMrkt. You're not actually debating with me though, hence the Monthy Python sketch. You are jut disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. The point I made in my last comment was my point all along if you actually read back through the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 9 minutes ago, honeybradger said: You're not actually debating with me though, hence the Monthy Python sketch. You are jut disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. The point I made in my last comment was my point all along if you actually read back through the thread. Ok, did not see the acknowledgement of the fact that value outside of transfer dealings is pretty meaningless, but yes did not read the history. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August (edited) Market value means very little. The only value that means anything is what that player is worth to the selling club. Jaimie Vardy is a great example, but not in the context that's already been said. JV is 37, barely trains to manage his body and has a year left on his contract. What would his market value be? Few hundred grand? Million, tops? Yet, would any of you sell him for that? No. He is one of our greatest ever players, a team leader, has tons of experience, a great mentality and still a proven goalscorer.Not to mention out best current striker. In short, he is worth much more to us than A, his market value and B, what anyone would realistically pay for him. Edited 4 August by Scotch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beastfootballx Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August Well thats that then 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxinNotts Posted 4 August Author Share Posted 4 August 4 minutes ago, beastfootballx said: Well thats that then Pathetic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobyfox Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slymunn Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 1 hour ago, MPH said: fells like West Ham are trying to ignore PSR Rice was a £100 million academy player last season, so they are able to go big. Also selling Downes for £15 million this window gives a decent amount to spend on top of the other sales they have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzy_no7 Posted 4 August Share Posted 4 August 21 minutes ago, beastfootballx said: Well thats that then Jesus wept what a moby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts