Perspective about transfer fees.

[Chesterlestreet]

As suggested above, the basic point only makes sense as long everyone around us suffers from the same inflation.

In and of itself it clearly doesn’t make any sense to keep paying fees at a certain percentage ratio (relative to turnover or profit or whatever the case may be) regardless of how much money you have.

If we make twice as much as our rivals, it isn’t reasonable that we should pay twice as much for comparable assets. That isn’t how it normally works: If you’re loaded and people know it, they can - and will - try to milk you to some extent, but there’s no rule that says you simply have to cough up.

In short, if Perisic at, what fifty mill is what anyone has to pay for him - fair enough. Then you either pay up - or look elsewhere. But if Inter demand that sort of money for him because it’s us, and we’re loaded, then it becomes a different matter entirely. Then you have to look at what sort of player he is, how dramatically he’d improve us, etc. To me he seems like a decent option to add, but hardly the sort of player you simply have to buy.

 

[Hojoon]

People caring so much about what football clubs spend is a bizarre phenomena in general.

 

[PieCrust]

The thing about United paying the United tax on transfers, is that our squad has been shit for years now. Selling teams hold all the cards because they know we're rich and our need is high. Add to that like what's happening this window in that we were desperate for a striker and there were not a lot of the requisite quality available. Only makes it worse and prices higher for us.

The pressure is always on for United. It's not good enough to just challenge for top 4 or win the Europa league. So every window is a window in which we've been looking for the players coming in to make the difference and win the league. The board hasn't helped here with their manager appointments. Moyes was an f'ing disaster that set us back even further, and the LVG hiring was probably ok, but only if you were actually going to commit (kill me for saying this) to "the process". LVG was always a wait 3 years and get back to me thing. If the club wasn't up for that, shouldn't have hired him. But after losing out on other targets, and Holland's good World Cup showing, I guess we bought into the hype a bit, which is funny, because it's not like LVG was some unknown quantity.

 

[PhilMcD79]

As suggested above, the basic point only makes sense as long everyone around us suffers from the same inflation.

In and of itself it clearly doesn’t make any sense to keep paying fees at a certain percentage ratio (relative to turnover or profit or whatever the case may be) regardless of how much money you have.

If we make twice as much as our rivals, it isn’t reasonable that we should pay twice as much for comparable assets. That isn’t how it normally works: If you’re loaded and people know it, they can - and will - try to milk you to some extent, but there’s no rule that says you simply have to cough up.

In short, if Perisic at, what fifty mill is what anyone has to pay for him - fair enough. Then you either pay up - or look elsewhere. But if Inter demand that sort of money for him because it’s us, and we’re loaded, then it becomes a different matter entirely. Then you have to look at what sort of player he is, how dramatically he’d improve us, etc. To me he seems like a decent option to add, but hardly the sort of player you simply have to buy.

This is so true. United seem to get stung paying a sort of mega money tax in many transfers that doesn't seem to apply to other clubs. Look at Vidal how much did Bayern get him for? It was something like €40 Million, there is no way United would ever have got him for such a price. And you just know if Moratta ends up signing for Milan it will be for a hell of a lot less than the £70 Million United were being asked for.

 

[GBBQ]

People caring so much about what football clubs spend is a bizarre phenomena in general.

I can understand it for mid table "nouveau riche" clubs who are buying big to try compete. A lot of clubs are spending based on TV revenue but that might not be sustainable. If the next TV deal is for a lesser value or say the big team splinter off into a euro league then suddenly clubs don't have the resources to keep the players they bough and the market would quickly deflate so they wont recoup the same money they spent on a player.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

People caring so much about what football clubs spend is a bizarre phenomena in general.

Well, it’s understandable in the sense that it has - simply - become a thing. People like a thing, and as things go there are far more absurd...things people obsess over.

You could even say, on the flipside, that fans not caring at all what sort of money is thrown about in the world of transfers is equally absurd. The latter takes it to a different level in terms of turning football into pure (and almost decadent) escapism: Entertain me, I don’t care how much it costs ‘cause it ain’t my money.

Lastly, United are run as a business, by business men, but is also a football club. What you could argue is that there’s something absurd about worrying that highly astute businessfolk like the Glazers are in danger of getting their figures wrong, as it were: They obviously won’t spend money we can’t afford to spend as such. But there’s still a football aspect to it, which the businessfolk may or may not understand to perfection. To a fan, Player X belongs in a certain category: He isn’t simply a generic asset we can afford, or not (in which case we obviously won’t buy him). He’s a talent for the future, a decent addition to the squad, an obvious match winner, or whatever you like. And how much we spend on the category of player in question does matter - unless we simply assume that we can keep buying players at whatever fees indefinitely until whatever manager is in charge gets it right.

 

[mad1max954]

The thing about United paying the United tax on transfers, is that our squad has been shit for years now. Selling teams hold all the cards because they know we're rich and our need is high. Add to that like what's happening this window in that we were desperate for a striker and there were not a lot of the requisite quality available. Only makes it worse and prices higher for us..

100% this. It's a lot easier when your recruiting from a position of strength (Real, bayern, Juventus) when you already have excellent playing squads. Those teams can also buy up he young talent and add to their team using proper scouting.

Our recruitment has been so bad for years that now we are looking to replace existing players and selling teams know it.

Citeh have experienced something similar with their defensive recruitment- walker/ stones etc.

 

[Isotope]

It seems that market prices are going up as clubs revenue increases sharply.

But the market is clearly inflating. If a house goes on the market for 500K you're not going to get far saying you will only pay 300K because that's how much houses cost 2 years ago.

Yes. But the OP use 'his own' income as the barometer, instead of the general market, where United is clearly ahead of their other competitors.

 

[fallengt]

I rather sign 1 world class for record fee than signing 2-3 overpriced squad players.

Di Maria didnt work out but if he had kept his shit together ,money couldve been easily well spent. Bastian, Morgan, Memphis on other hand were just waste of time and money.

Tbh post Fergie our "middle budget" signings are so bad. Only few playera like Herrera & Baily r spot on.

 

[Toad]

Good post, in reality this is correct, although even if we spent 10% of our turnover on a player there will always be opposition fans finding some way to argue that we overspent.

Pogba being £89.3m is 17.5% roughly which for a world class player is fantastic price. I bet woodward has this table in front of him everytime we make a bid, deciding how much to bid depends on where he thinks this player deserves to be in that table

According to the reliable Google, PSG 2017 turnover is £307m, so Neymar could be 63.5% to them Now that's insane!

 

[pghcc]

Good post, in reality this is correct, although even if we spent 10% of our turnover on a player there will always be opposition fans finding some way to argue that we overspent.

Pogba being £89.3m is 17.5% roughly which for a world class player is fantastic price. I bet woodward has this table in front of him everytime we make a bid, deciding how much to bid depends on where he thinks this player deserves to be in that table

According to the reliable Google, PSG 2017 turnover is £307m, so Neymar could be 63.5% to them Now that's insane!

Isn't disposable income more indicative of affordability than turnover?

 

[Satissh12]

Here is an interesting interpretation of transfer fees adjusted to current market rates

 

[Thunderhead]

Here is an interesting interpretation of transfer fees adjusted to current market rates

that makes no sense to me, how is Martial at £85m when he didn't even cost half that? We bought Aguero for about £35m, sure other players were purchased around that time from us for a similar amount, why are they not on there, sure we paid around £30m for Dzeko in 2011, surely he would be on there.

 

[Z_Wolf]

that makes no sense to me, how is Martial at £85m when he didn't even cost half that? We bought Aguero for about £35m, sure other players were purchased around that time from us for a similar amount, why are they not on there, sure we paid around £30m for Dzeko in 2011, surely he would be on there.

We've paid £50m for Martial so far, an initial £36m+ (2×£8m) add ons.

 

[MV12]

Ultimately something is only worth what someone is prepared and able to pay for it..

My parents bought a house back in the 60's for 5,000 quid.. That same house today would cost you half a million..

I remember buying a pint for pennies, now it's what a fiver or more?

When we compare the prices being talked about in regards to buying players and the wage that they earn, to the general public, the disproportionality is off the chart..

There needs to be more money circulating in the general public arena, and less being syphoned off to feed the greed of egocentric 'superstars' and the like.

I mean a footballer (let's really think about this for a second) earns about 200 X what a nurse can.. Now ask yourself if that's ethical.

Guys we live in a world that is well and truly twisted.

 

[Jaybomb]

Some fans are fickle and don't think about stuff like this. Transfer fees don't always mean "This is how good the player is!" either. If clubs don't want to sell, they'll put an outrageous price tag on the player. See Van Dijk for example.

Look at Bonucci to Milan for 30m. Then look at Stones to City for 50m. It doesn't mean City think Stones is better than Bonucci. There's a lot that goes into it. Maybe Bonucci wouldn't want to join City even for 50m. But some fans will be like "City could have got Bonucci for 30m!"... no they couldn't....

I always laugh at people who say "Hurr durr you could have got 3 world class players for the price of Pogba!"....... they just don't get it.

 

[apotheosis]

I never felt like we were paying twice what Carrick was worth. £60 million for Dier is preposterous.

Please be made up, please be made up, please be made up.....

Really? Something is only worth what another is prepared to pay. Value is relative and is mostly determined subjectively. Spurs bought Carrick for 2.5m in 2004, we should have gone for him then, but we didn't, and had to pay 18m for him 2 seasons later. Had his value rocketed so quickly? Not for me, West ham wanted to sell and 2 seasons on, Spurs didn't. Spurs now don't want to sell Dier, so why should they sell him cheaply?

I have no problem with clubs asking ridiculous amounts to deter bigger clubs from poaching their players, especially when they are not interested in selling. It's that simple. Spurs and Inter simply don't want to sell their best players, so we should just table our final respective offers and then walk away.

 

[sunama]

@Jericholyte2

A very sensible OP but you're facing a losing battle. You would have better success selling HD 4k ready TV packages to the blind.

 

[red_devil83]

Here is an interesting interpretation of transfer fees adjusted to current market rates

This chart looks like garbage. Since the WR is still £89m for Pogba, nothing should be adjusted to me more than that. Also, the only 2 transfers on there that are remotely realistic are Hazard and Pogba prices. Even Lukaku has the traditional "its United so we'll quote the absolute maximum possble fee even thought that's not been paid yet".

 

[MikeSmalling]

This has probably already been mentioned, but the rapid rise in transfer fees surely is leading to some sort of bubble. The growth in club revenue, largely driven by TV contracts, is not sustainable.

Not that the NFL is the proverbial canary in a coal mine, especially for a different sport that counts most of its viewers in different countries, but after paying out record fees for TV contracts, ESPN has seen a very significant dip in viewership and has since laid off a large number of their employees, including popular on-air talent.