That's just in England though and simply a result of how much money clubs are making now. 20mil isn't enough to convince them to sell now.
Did we open the floodgate with Pogba transfer?
- Thread starter reelworld
- Start date
I see your point but if Pogba ever hits his ceiling (which he probably will) he'll be as good as a goal scoring attacker in terms of goals, I can see him posting Bale/James numbers someday easily.
Then add he can do things James and Bale can't. He's probably more valuable ultimately. The Higuain transfer I meant was to Juventus btw. You know footie has gone mad when Juve are throwing mega money around. It's like Everton paying £50m for a midfie...
Oh, wait.
You aren't alone with this feeling. I used to be a big football consumer, i'd watch as many matches from most leagues as possible. Nowadays it's 2-3 per weekends (one of them being United obviously) and the rest just highlights. At times I cannot ever be bothered with highlights, just watch results and league standings.
As I've grown older, I've realized that football has lost a lot of its importance in my life and it's a change I welcome tbh. Gives me opportunities to do other stuff.
The problem is that FFP is ridiculously easy to get round for the oil clubs. The owners of both PSG and City are national royal families, so if they want to obviate FFP they can simply do sponsorship deals with companies from their countries - or, in other words, take money from their subjects.
Look at City's deal with Etihad. It's huge given City's size and national appeal. But Etihad's owners have a vested interest in pleasing their royal family and participating in what amounts to a national PR project.
As long as FFP remains about spending versus income, the oil clubs will be able to flout it, because they can drain their countries of money whenever they want.
We need an absolute cap on spending and salaries, a flat rate for all clubs. But I doubt this will happen as Uefa and Fifa have no interest in stopping the likes of Qatar given their previous, er hum, dealings.
In the end we'll see the traditional clubs break away and form their own super league. It's in their financial interest and it'll give them an excuse to form a cosy, oil-free cabal.
Look at City's deal with Etihad. It's huge given City's size and national appeal. But Etihad's owners have a vested interest in pleasing their royal family and participating in what amounts to a national PR project.
As long as FFP remains about spending versus income, the oil clubs will be able to flout it, because they can drain their countries of money whenever they want.
We need an absolute cap on spending and salaries, a flat rate for all clubs. But I doubt this will happen as Uefa and Fifa have no interest in stopping the likes of Qatar given their previous, er hum, dealings.
In the end we'll see the traditional clubs break away and form their own super league. It's in their financial interest and it'll give them an excuse to form a cosy, oil-free cabal.
Na united started the floodgate in 2009, when ronaldo was sold for 80 million, then it was game on. United just re energized the prices by rebreaking the transfer record in their favor for Pogba
Does it really matter though?
The market adapts to the financial structure behind it. Obviously transfers were lower back in the days, but back then football wasn't as much of a cash machine as it is today. The higher transfer fees just reflects the interest and commerce the sport has grown into. The rest is just virtual numbers set to amaze us.
The market adapts to the financial structure behind it. Obviously transfers were lower back in the days, but back then football wasn't as much of a cash machine as it is today. The higher transfer fees just reflects the interest and commerce the sport has grown into. The rest is just virtual numbers set to amaze us.
I love how some suggest it's always our fault - like how some said the inflation since 2009 was our fault for ACCEPTING £80m from Real Madrid for a player we didn't want to sell in the first place 
Pogba wasn't that much more than Bale - what we've seen this summer is another level altogether.
Pogba wasn't that much more than Bale - what we've seen this summer is another level altogether.
Billy is that you?
That's what I think too. Foreign clubs in particular are looking at the premiership as a cash cow, you want our player cough up or feck off and the same with clubs in the premier, they don't really need the money so they can name their price, I just wonder how long it will all last.
That's true I guess. Sigurdsson is getting sold for £45m simply because Swansea has no incentive to sell him for a lower price. The same player bought from Ligue 1 (or any orher league) by a club outside PL would have cost significantly less. Still, when buying from outside PL English teams are also getting squeezed for every penny.
It's been gradually building for a while. We upped the ante with Pogba, PSG and Barca have now taken it a level or two further.
We doubtlessly have a role to play in the crazy money in football, but so do the British footballing authorities as well as those around Europe and the wider world.
We doubtlessly have a role to play in the crazy money in football, but so do the British footballing authorities as well as those around Europe and the wider world.
Yeah, I think to a degree buying Neymar is as much a political move as a footballing one, they're getting a lot of shit from other countries at the moment, particularly from some of the other gulf states, it could be as much as a finger to those that criticise them and they might not stop with Neymar.
£85m for Bale to £89m for Pogba wasn't a huge jump. We didn't trigger anything.
Abramovich was the tipping point.
As far as reality goes, just look at China arguing against caps on CO2. "You have already got where you wanted, we haven't, so we'll keep polluting as much as we need to get there".
Same holds for FFP and financial doping. Real, Barca, United, Bayern... they developed their financial strength over decades. Then Abramovich came along, spent ridiculous sums, and no one can argue it hasn't worked out for Chelsea. They aren't inordinate spenders any more, but they are competing at the top (of the PL) year after year.
Like it or not, the Sheikhs have a strong case for following the same model. Doping to close the gap and get into the mix, not as a permanent thing.
Of course, when you look at City, it's been a decade already but they didn't do anything stupid like taking a big club's prized asset, just used Arsenal as a feeder club.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out now Barca have been hit and Real look incapable of landing Mbappe. Barca aren't garnering much support though the way they have been going on with Verratti, Dembele and Coutinho. Zero sympathy.
As far as reality goes, just look at China arguing against caps on CO2. "You have already got where you wanted, we haven't, so we'll keep polluting as much as we need to get there".
Same holds for FFP and financial doping. Real, Barca, United, Bayern... they developed their financial strength over decades. Then Abramovich came along, spent ridiculous sums, and no one can argue it hasn't worked out for Chelsea. They aren't inordinate spenders any more, but they are competing at the top (of the PL) year after year.
Like it or not, the Sheikhs have a strong case for following the same model. Doping to close the gap and get into the mix, not as a permanent thing.
Of course, when you look at City, it's been a decade already but they didn't do anything stupid like taking a big club's prized asset, just used Arsenal as a feeder club.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out now Barca have been hit and Real look incapable of landing Mbappe. Barca aren't garnering much support though the way they have been going on with Verratti, Dembele and Coutinho. Zero sympathy.
No i dont think so....I see it more like united finally joined the party when we signed pogba.
Even if you take away the world class goal scorers and compare him to attackig midfielders, you've got kaka going fo £56 million 7 year earlier and james going for £63 million 2 years earlier. The floodgates opened long before we got involved.
Pogba had a hit and miss first season but he was THE must have, even slightly attainable player in the world last summer,you have to pay world record fees to get them. Other clubs have been doing it for years. The first time we do it and suddenly united have wrecked the transfer market....Its not even remotely true imo
Even if you take away the world class goal scorers and compare him to attackig midfielders, you've got kaka going fo £56 million 7 year earlier and james going for £63 million 2 years earlier. The floodgates opened long before we got involved.
Pogba had a hit and miss first season but he was THE must have, even slightly attainable player in the world last summer,you have to pay world record fees to get them. Other clubs have been doing it for years. The first time we do it and suddenly united have wrecked the transfer market....Its not even remotely true imo
Pogba was an expensive transfer but he was only about 10 million more than the previous record. Neymar more than doubled that deal which has seen the likes of Coutinho priced well above 100 million.
Pogba's transfer was only £4m more than Bale's and it was 3 years later. The only noticeable transfer that Pogba's affected was Higuain's. In comparison Neymar's transfer at £198m has over doubled the previous record and it has meant that players like Dembele and Coutinho, who would both have been valued at closer to £70m are now valued at closer to £140m.
Pogbas price made sense. I also think Neymar's 222m price makes some sense (e.g. more than Bale's 100m / Neymar's initial 90m). If any, I think our Martial transfer had more impact on inflated prices.
Considering Neymar was over twice as much as him, no. £89m for a player like Pogba now seems really cheap.
There was no middle ground really, following Pogba. We only paid £4m more than Madrid paid for Bale, yet Neymar - the next world record - was a simply ridiculous amount.
There was no middle ground really, following Pogba. We only paid £4m more than Madrid paid for Bale, yet Neymar - the next world record - was a simply ridiculous amount.
No United did not trigger this insane transfer market. Moreover we did a good job purchasing Pogba last summer, imagine his value in this transfer market now.
£89 million is good value for money considering Pogba's blatant talent and marketing nous.
To be honest, Neymar may be over valued but he is the chosen one and probably worth it. If United paid that or near that amount we would be spermless.
£89 million is good value for money considering Pogba's blatant talent and marketing nous.
To be honest, Neymar may be over valued but he is the chosen one and probably worth it. If United paid that or near that amount we would be spermless.
No. I think the sudden spike was inevitable and we just had the nouse to get in early.
Nah. Pogba's fee only eclipsed the record by £5m. PSG/Quatar sent the market into crazy time.
It's really all Andy Carroll's fault.
Came here to say 89m..
Bargain business by Ed and JM
Bargain business by Ed and JM
This.
You could argue ta good for football.
If the top clubs want to gobble up the top talents they are going to have to pay big.
That has to be a good thing for the clubs developing these talents.
Maybe Ed isn't as daft as people think?
That said how glad are we that we got the deal home before this summer?
Pogba would be going for well over 100m now.
Thank you for this post. You said it way more eloquently and complete than I could have.
Hit the nail on the head. Whether they are paid £1bn a min or £1 it's still just a bunch of talented footballers competing in a match. There might be more happening off the pitch but that's not our concern.
This being said I do think the world generally is in a bad place regarding wealth distribution.
There are numerous stats about certain groups of the top wealthy individual clearing poverty many times over and yes there is corruption that might get in the way of this, but however you look at it, wealth is unfairly grouping with the few whilst others have to struggle and yet the few are really just the lucky in terms of product timing, family background or other such, e.g oil.
There needs to be a wealth cap and footballers are probably reaching into that space in some circumstances.
To spectacular goals you mean? Then yes !!
Thank you. Having just read my post again, there are so many spelling mistakes. Blame that on my phone and it's little buttons! Lol
But yes, what you say is true. The world is a very bad place at the moment. I suppose in some ways, football is what unites us all. But that's easy for someoylike me to say. I thankfully have been blessed for what I have. Unlike many in the world.
No we did not, should have, by selling Ronaldo for 200m.
Neymar has changed the market but he'll never achieve half of what Ronaldo did at Real.
Pogba & Bale's price were fair,considering what they's offered to the clubs
Neymar has changed the market but he'll never achieve half of what Ronaldo did at Real.
Pogba & Bale's price were fair,considering what they's offered to the clubs
Hardly anyone needs the money from transfers now because the TV money is so huge (in England, anyway, I don't know about other places) and a lot of clubs have incredibly wealthy backers. So you either have to pay huge money or get the player to agitate, or sometimes both.
I assume you are referring to my post above. I suggest you read it again to ascertain the meaning behind my post.I love how some suggest it's always our fault - like how some said the inflation since 2009 was our fault for ACCEPTING £80m from Real Madrid for a player we didn't want to sell in the first place
Pogba wasn't that much more than Bale - what we've seen this summer is another level altogether.
I hadn't seen your post so it didn't have any impact on mine at all, therefore its meaning was irrelevant.
I would still argue Neymar is good value. He's highly marketable and possibly the third best player in the world, and likely will be for the next 6-8 years. Coutinho going for £100m is where the farce is. Readily replaceable players going for £70m+ is the inflation.
David Luiz for 50m, Bale for 90m, and some other I can't remember were equally bad.
Ronaldo for 80m was not out of the scale from Zidane 50m.
Ronaldo for 80m was not out of the scale from Zidane 50m.
No problem - I just meant that a few other times over the years since he left, when threads have come-up discussing inflation in the market then usually someone tries to put blame on us for accepting the Ronaldo money, rather than blame Real for bidding and paying that money in the first place, which I've ever understood. If the Ronaldo transfer gets the blame for starting this wave of inflation (which is an argument worthy of discussion) then I can't see the logic in blaming the selling club who didn't want to lose the player rather than the buying club who paid the money for the player.
I probably should've read more in the thread before posting
Nah, it's a open market with willing buyers and sellers. A club pays, what they can (in theory at least!) afford and what they deem a player worth.
Nah, Sky did that.
Nothing to do with Pogba, if clubs aren't rich enough to reject £40m, they won't. If they are, they probably will. They currently are.
Nothing to do with Pogba, if clubs aren't rich enough to reject £40m, they won't. If they are, they probably will. They currently are.