Gareth Bale Transfer Speculation | Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brwned said:
If they were outliers like Carroll then that's fine, but they're not. Fernandinho's going for £30m, Higuaín's going for £35m, Falcao and Cavani are going for £50m+...that is the going rate.

I've not bothered to look but I reckon even though Bale scored half as many goals as Ronaldo he scored more top class goals. No-one thinks he'll match Ronaldo's goal a game record (though few thought Messi would match Ronaldo's 42 goals...) but he's at the point where he can score from pretty much anywhere, at any point and against any team. I swear people are being harsh on Bale just because of the hype to begin with.
Click to expand...

I can see what you're saying but Monoco and PSG both clearly overpaid for Falcao and Cavani, I have very little knowledge of Fernandinho but City probably overspent there.

All three of those clubs are oil rich and are the primary teams distorting the market, they aren't paying proper rates.

I know you will ask when the distorted rate becomes the normal rate, but IMO that isn't going to happen because these sugar daddy clubs are still a huge minority. Normal teams aren't going to compete with that or bid at the same levels, it isn't sustainable for 99% of clubs so it's not even as if they have the option to pay inflated fees.
 
Brwned said:
If they were outliers like Carroll then that's fine, but they're not. Fernandinho's going for £30m, Higuaín's going for £35m, Falcao and Cavani are going for £50m+...that is the going rate.

I've not bothered to look but I reckon even though Bale scored half as many goals as Ronaldo he scored more top class goals. No-one thinks he'll match Ronaldo's goal a game record (though few thought Messi would match Ronaldo's 42 goals...) but he's at the point where he can score from pretty much anywhere, at any point and against any team. I swear people are being harsh on Bale just because of the hype to begin with.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it matters what proportion of a player's goals are 'top class'? It's all about volume.

Bale is widely accepted as being a top drawer player now, irrespective of earlier hype, but the current ridicule is based on his ludicrous valuation.
 
Brwned said:
Personally I think Bale last season was as good as Ronaldo in 06/07 which was enough for the vast majority of United fans to claim he was the best player in the world. At that point Ronaldo was a £50m+ player and I'd say that's true of Bale too, once you adjust for inflation it's pretty much in keeping with the kind of fee he deserves IMO. I definitely see him as having the potential to be a Ballon d'Or winner (or second to Messi depending on how things go). If you're saying Bale is a £50m player at most then does that mean you think Cavani and Falcao are more proven and/or better players? Bale's got plenty of development left in him but I don't think you can say he's been found lacking in any area as of yet. Or at least no more so than Ronaldo at the same stage. For all the criticisms thrown at him for "being a Lampard" last season I think he's shown himself to be a similarly capable passer and (compared to Ronaldo as he is now) a better dribbler.
Click to expand...

I would have disagree with him originally, and said that £60mil is about the price a big rich club like Real should be paying for him. But in fact, when you put it like that, I don't think he's any better than Falcao. Falcao has been a really good striker for ages, and for Atletico he scored 70 goals in two seasons. Now I know he's a striker and Bale's a winger (albeit one who was obviously Spurs' main goal-threat and around whom their play was centred), but still I don't think you can reasonably argue that Bale is worth more.
 
Theon said:
I can see what you're saying but Monoco and PSG both clearly overpaid for Falcao and Cavani, I have very little knowledge of Fernandinho but City probably overspent there.

All three of those clubs are oil rich and are the primary teams distorting the market, they aren't paying proper rates.

I know you will ask when the distorted rate becomes the normal rate, but IMO that isn't going to happen because these sugar daddy clubs are still a huge minority.
Click to expand...

Madrid have been distorting the rate since time began.

They paid 35 million for Illaramendi just this summer.

Tottenham would never let them get away with paying just 10 million more for Bale.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Madrid have been distorting the rate since time began.

They paid 35 million for Illaramendi just this summer.
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed, no arguments there.

My point is that they are overspending on Bale if they bid £85million - it isn't the normal rate or a true reflection of his market value

Like Monoco overspent, PSG overspent, Madrid are now overspending. It doesn't mean that these huge fees now represent the market, it's just a few clubs who are distorting it somewhat but there is too few of them to have a proper market wide effect.
 
Theon said:
Yeah agreed, no arguments there.

My point is that they are overspending on Bale if they bid £85million - it isn't the normal rate or a true reflection of his market value
Click to expand...

£85m for Bale is utterly absurd if you consider Falcao, a far more proven player, went for £50m - and even that was overinflated.
 
Theon said:
Niether are great dribblers anymore, Ronaldo used to be but it's all about pace and power at Madrid which is quite similar to Bale.

I think they are on about the same level when it comes to dribbling, maybe Ronaldo has a slight edge because he's a tad more explosive
Click to expand...


Yep, that's what I said. Ronaldo during his time with us, before he became a pure goalscorer(circa 06-07) was a fantastic dribbler. He cut it out though. Bale never was a great dribbler to start with. They are at about the same level now.
 
Brwned said:
If they were outliers like Carroll then that's fine, but they're not. Fernandinho's going for £30m, Higuaín's going for £35m, Falcao and Cavani are going for £50m+...that is the going rate.

I've not bothered to look but I reckon even though Bale scored half as many goals as Ronaldo he scored more top class goals. No-one thinks he'll match Ronaldo's goal a game record (though few thought Messi would match Ronaldo's 42 goals...) but he's at the point where he can score from pretty much anywhere, at any point and against any team. I swear people are being harsh on Bale just because of the hype to begin with.
Click to expand...
Ronaldo scores more, is a better header of the ball, has a better touch, is better in thought spaces and is a better dribbler. Bale is not even very good at dribbling. He's quick and strikes the ball superbly. Ronaldo has class to go along with all of that. And scores more.
 
Theon said:
Yeah agreed, no arguments there.

My point is that they are overspending on Bale if they bid £85million - it isn't the normal rate or a true reflection of his market value

Like Monoco overspent, PSG overspent, Madrid are now overspending. It doesn't mean that these huge fees now represent the market, it's just a few clubs who are distorting it somewhat but there is too few of them to have a proper market wide effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure on this point. Wigan, a championship side, are allegedly asking 20m for James McCarthy. Leighton Baines for roughly 20m. Suarez, a bloke who is suspended for a quarter of all games is apparently worth 50odd million. This is an inflated market started by the oil-rich clubs but has rippled to all of the other clubs.
 
backofthenet said:
I'm not sure on this point. Wigan, a championship side, are allegedly asking 20m for James McCarthy. Leighton Baines for roughly 20m. Suarez, a bloke who is suspended for a quarter of all games is apparently worth 50odd million. This is an inflated market started by the oil-rich clubs but has rippled to all of the other clubs.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, which is why I put 'proper market wide effect' because what you say is true - there has been some ripples but I don't expect it to take hold.

Those players haven't been sold yet, so we can't draw anything from that, but when Baines or James McCarthy gets sold for £20million to a non oil rich team then it clearly has affected the whole market. I don't think that will happen though, because normal teams can't afford to get dragged into an inflated transfer market.
 
When Real bought Ronaldo... it was still flip a coin as to who was the best player in the world between him and Messi... it is testament to how good Messi / Barca have been that Ronaldo's amazing stats at Real have him playing 2nd fiddle to Messi right now.

When Real bought Ronaldo he had won 1 x BPITW and 1 x CL winner and been a losing finalist in another.

Bale is NOWHERE near that level of success... and will never be.
 
If I was given the choice of Bale or a young Ryan Giggs, there would be no question as to which young Welshman would be playing for us.

As I have said previously, Bale to RM can only be good for us.
 
Theon said:
Yeah agreed, no arguments there.

My point is that they are overspending on Bale if they bid £85million - it isn't the normal rate or a true reflection of his market value

Like Monoco overspent, PSG overspent, Madrid are now overspending. It doesn't mean that these huge fees now represent the market, it's just a few clubs who are distorting it somewhat but there is too few of them to have a proper market wide effect.
Click to expand...

The fees that these clubs like Madrid and the new money clubs pay for players has nothing to do with the 'market' in the sense as you see it. The price of a player has to bee seen in the context by just a club by club basis. The price of a player is dependent on the resources of the buying club or the vanity of the owner and how much the selling club is willing to sell at, with the other variables thrown in, i.e age, nationality, status, wages, contract length , marketing appeal, inflation, new T.V deal, does the selling club need the cash?, has the buying club have assets to fund the transfer? ect.
The bottom line is that Bale is worth what Madrid are willing to pay Spurs for him. It is good old fashion bartering, good and simple. When you have players being bought and sold on the basis of human emotion and vanity you are not going to find any consistency in the worth of players, with all the other variables thrown in. That is the market.
 
psychdelicblues said:
The fees that these clubs like Madrid and the new money clubs pay for players has nothing to do with the 'market' in the sense as you see it. The price of a player has to bee seen in the context by just a club by club basis. The price of a player is dependent on the resources of the buying club or the vanity of the owner and how much the selling club is willing sell at, with the other variables thrown in, i.e age, nationality, status, wages, contract length , marketing appeal, inflation, does the selling club need the cash?, has the buying club have assets to fund the transfer? ect.
The bottom line is that Bale is worth what Madrid are willing to pay him. It is good old fashion bartering, good and simple. When you have players being bought and sold on the basis of human emotion and vanity you are not going to find any consistency in the worth of players, with all the other variables thrown in. That is the market.
Click to expand...

We are clearly talking about different things here. Obviously what you are saying is true, Madrid will pay what they think Bale is worth to them.

But that does not stop us commenting on whether a particular deal represents good value.

More importantly there is always a 'market price', even in a market as complex as this one.

The whole reason this discusion arose is that in response to one poster saying the fee was overpriced, another said it represented the current market value which is currently distorted and overpriced in general.
 
Theon said:
We are clearly talking about different things here. Obviously what you are saying is true, Madrid will pay what they think Bale is worth to them.

But that does not stop us commenting on whether a particular deal represents good value.

More importantly there is always a 'market price', even in a market as complex as this one.

The whole reason this discusion arose is that in response to one poster saying the fee was overpriced, another said it represented the current market value which is currently distorted and overpriced in general.
Click to expand...

I agree there is always a market price, where I disagree is that it is a fixed market price.
 
Brightonian said:
Not to be a pedant, but infinitely sooner is an infinitely short space of time after now. Zeno of Elea y'all!
Click to expand...

Bloody Zeno! So busy with his paradoxes he forgot to feed the tortoise. Poor little critter collapsed before he reached the finish line. Which casts doubt on Zeno's entire body of work.

(If, as seems reasonable, an 'infinitely short space of time' is defined as a time interval which is shorter than any real interval which can be specified, the only space of time which fulfils that criterion is zero. :D)
 
The market has supposedly been "inflated" for the last ten years according to the cafe.

If it is as consistent as it has been it cannot be called inflated any more. It is simply the market.
 
You know that there's been a culture shift when Arsenal bid almost £10m more than our record purchase.
 
KingMinger22 said:
The market has supposedly been "inflated" for the last ten years according to the cafe.

If it is as consistent as it has been it cannot be called inflated any more. It is simply the market.
Click to expand...

Good point, but there may be some deflation on the horizon. If the oil clubs are to have any hope of complying with FFP in the long term, they'll have to drastically curb their expenditure. A new Spanish TV deal in 2014 will likely rob Barca/Madrid of some of their spending power.

Against that, football revenues worldwide continue to rise. So...
 
KingMinger22 said:
The market has supposedly been "inflated" for the last ten years according to the cafe.

If it is as consistent as it has been it cannot be called inflated any more. It is simply the market.
Click to expand...

The bizarre thing is Rio and Rooney are seen as good value by the very same people.

When we bought those two, our yearly net profit was the same as their total transfer fees... This year our net profit will be somewhere around the £120m mark. £60m nowadays is nowhere near as frightening as the Rio/Veron/Rooney transfers.

The difference isn't that "oil clubs are inflating the market", it's that we've decided not to pay market value for World Class players. Which isn't a bad thing (as our success has proven), but lets not pretend Suarez, Cavani, Falcao etc aren't worth their fee, because that accusation could also have stupidly been levelled at Rooney or Ferdinand.
 
finneh said:
The bizarre thing is Rio and Rooney are seen as good value by the very same people.

When we bought those two, our yearly net profit was the same as their total transfer fees... This year our net profit will be somewhere around the £120m mark. £60m nowadays is nowhere near as frightening as the Rio/Veron/Rooney transfers.

The difference isn't that "oil clubs are inflating the market", it's that we've decided not to pay market value for World Class players. Which isn't a bad thing (as our success has proven), but lets not pretend Suarez, Cavani, Falcao etc aren't worth their fee, because that accusation could also have stupidly been levelled at Rooney or Ferdinand.
Click to expand...

Which shows how huge an investment those fees were at the time. Paying say 50m for Cavani now would, from an organizational perspective, be much easier for us. Or should be.
 
Bebe said:
Which shows how huge an investment those fees were at the time. Paying say 50m for Cavani now would, from an organizational perspective, be much easier for us. Or should be.
Click to expand...

Definitely - Rio, Rooney and Veron were signings to take us from the best English team to one of the best teams in the world. Obviously out of those 3, two were huge successes and one was a big failure for the cost.

I feel we are at a similar crossroads - do we want to sign solid players like Valencia and Young along with potentially top players like De Gea, Jones, Smalling, Hernandez etc... Or do we want to go toe to toe with Barcelona, Munich and probably now Real.

We are where Bayern were a few years ago, since then they've bought top players for big money 3 seasons running and the difference is there to see.
 
finneh said:
The bizarre thing is Rio and Rooney are seen as good value by the very same people.
Click to expand...

Ferdinand cost £29million and Rooney even less than that, they were completely in line with what you would expect to pay - particularly Rooney.

Do you think we overpaid for Rooney or Rio?
 
Will Absolute said:
(If, as seems reasonable, an 'infinitely short space of time' is defined as a time interval which is shorter than any real interval which can be specified, the only space of time which fulfils that criterion is zero. :D)
Click to expand...

...No. ;) But perhaps here isn't the place to get into it!
 
finneh said:
Definitely - Rio, Rooney and Veron were signings to take us from the best English team to one of the best teams in the world. Obviously out of those 3, two were huge successes and one was a big failure for the cost.

I feel we are at a similar crossroads - do we want to sign solid players like Valencia and Young along with potentially top players like De Gea, Jones, Smalling, Hernandez etc... Or do we want to go toe to toe with Barcelona, Munich and probably now Real.

We are where Bayern were a few years ago, since then they've bought top players for big money 3 seasons running and the difference is there to see.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Bayern are an example of what can be achieved by buying established talent.
 
Theon said:
Ferdinand cost £29million and Rooney even less than that, they were completely in line with what you would expect to pay - particularly Rooney.

Do you think we overpaid for Rooney or Rio?
Click to expand...

The point is £30m back then is £90m now.

Just because fans (and Fergie/Wenger) refuse to accept this to be the case is irrelevant. Players now cost 3 times what they did 10 years ago.

I can't imagine what our team would look like if our contract negotiations replicated our transfer policy - we'd be offering RVP £70k a week and be getting laughed at.

We're happy to pay our best players £200k+ a week - which is 3 times the wage of a decade ago - bizarrely we won't pay the transfer fees - which are also 3 times the amount (as is our profit).
 
finneh said:
The point is £30m back then is £90m now.

Just because fans (and Fergie/Wenger) refuse to accept this to be the case is irrelevant. Players now cost 3 times what they did 10 years ago.

I can't imagine what our team would look like if our contract negotiations replicated our transfer policy - we'd be offering RVP £70k a week and be getting laughed at.

We're happy to pay our best players £200k+ a week - which is 3 times the wage of a decade ago - bizarrely we won't pay the transfer fees - which are also 3 times the amount (as is our profit).
Click to expand...

Hopefully we will keep refusing to pay that kind of insane money.
 
finneh said:
The point is £30m back then is £90m now.

Just because fans (and Fergie/Wenger) refuse to accept this to be the case is irrelevant. Players now cost 3 times what they did 10 years ago.

I can't imagine what our team would look like if our contract negotiations replicated our transfer policy - we'd be offering RVP £70k a week and be getting laughed at.

We're happy to pay our best players £200k+ a week - which is 3 times the wage of a decade ago - bizarrely we won't pay the transfer fees - which are also 3 times the amount (as is our profit).
Click to expand...

That isn't true though, the value of players hasn't tripled since 2003. Some of the best players are getting bought for daft fees but thats the whole point about how a few clubs are paying above market value just because they can and they have a business model that means they need to, if they are to achieve their objectives. It clearly isn't sustainable.

I wouldn't blame Gill or Ferguson for not competing with that because it doesn't make business sense. Fergie will have attached a value to players and he isn't going to go above that just because City/Chelsea/Monoco/PSG can afford to pay more at the expense of sustainability.

Source for the Man United net profit argument you're making?

Not that it even matters, because all clubs haven't trippled their profitability which is what would be needed for it to have a global effect.

Bale isn't worth £90million or whatever he will end up getting sold at, it's mental.

It's just a few clubs spending lavish amounts on players but stupid fees have not infected the whole market IMO - it simply couldn't do because most clubs can't afford it. An average transfer will have increased, which always happens, but not in line with the disproportionate spending of oil clubs.

A good argument was made before in that Baines and McCarthy are being touted for £20million, if they get sold to a normal club then its clear that these daft fees really do represent the whole market, but until that happens its confined to those with huge budgets IMO.

Or would you argue that Baines for £20million is the market rate?
 
Theon said:
I can see what you're saying but Monoco and PSG both clearly overpaid for Falcao and Cavani, I have very little knowledge of Fernandinho but City probably overspent there.

All three of those clubs are oil rich and are the primary teams distorting the market, they aren't paying proper rates.

I know you will ask when the distorted rate becomes the normal rate, but IMO that isn't going to happen because these sugar daddy clubs are still a huge minority. Normal teams aren't going to compete with that or bid at the same levels, it isn't sustainable for 99% of clubs so it's not even as if they have the option to pay inflated fees.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how people work out what a player's value is if it's not by comparing it to other players of a similar level.

What does the 99% of other clubs have to do with anything? The top clubs operate in a different world to the others and have done for a while. It's not just sugar daddy clubs. Javi Martinez and Higuain went for €40m. Neymar went for almost €60m. Arsenal have bid £40m for Suárez. Torres and Kaká were both blatantly on the decline and yet they cost €58m and €68m respectively, and of course in their case this was 2-4 years ago. Yes, Torres was bought for an inflated price because he was a panic buy, and I think the same is true of Bale...all I'm saying is I'd back him to prove he was worth the money within a couple of years (when there will be a good few more £50m+ bought). At the moment it's a huge amount of money for someone who isn't a sure thing - I agree with pete and Fortitude there. He has plenty of developing to do to really establish himself as a future Ballon d'Or challenger. I just think he will continue to develop well and eventually he'll get there.

Feed Me said:
I don't see why it matters what proportion of a player's goals are 'top class'? It's all about volume.
Click to expand...
If I was trying to argue that Bale was better than Ronaldo because he scored more top class goals then that'd be a reasonable response. As it is it seems you're being deliberately obtuse. What it shows is that Bale was more capable of creating something out of nothing which is of course an invaluable trait. It's hugely impressive that he was able to pull off moments of magic more often than someone as explosive as Ronaldo, IMO, and I'd say it makes it reasonable to see him as a special player. He doesn't seem to be being regarded as such on here.
 
Ronaldo was playing in a MU team far better than the sp*rs team that Bale is playing in. He'll improve significantly if he plays at RM with the players that they have. He's undoubtedly a top-drawer player.
 
Grinner said:
Ronaldo was playing in a MU team far better than the sp*rs team that Bale is playing in. He'll improve significantly if he plays at RM with the players that they have. He's undoubtedly a top-drawer player.
Click to expand...

He is.

Not at Ronaldo's level though. Never will be.
 
Grinner said:
I don't see how you can possibly say that with certainty.
Click to expand...


You think Bales getting 60/70 goals next season for Madrid or winning the world player of the year anytime soon?
 
Grinner said:
I don't see how you can possibly say that with certainty.
Click to expand...

Well, only as far as I can say that Cleverley will never be as good as Vieira.

Ronaldo and Messi are two of the best players ever. Up there with the likes of Zidane, Cruyff, Maradona, Platini etc. Bale, at best, is the level below that. A Giggs, a Scholes, a Henry etc.
 
finneh said:
We are where Bayern were a few years ago, since then they've bought top players for big money 3 seasons running and the difference is there to see.
Click to expand...

I've never thought about it that way, good point. Perhaps the worrying thing (or at least what might push us to sign established stars) for us is that while there are lots of "solid" young players in the squad who can certainly be starters, there isn't anyone who really screams "superstar" like a Goetze, Hazard, Wilshere, Isco, Neymar etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.