What are the factors that determine how much player-x is worth, how much the buying club is prepared to pay for player-x (both on transfer fees and wages), and how much the selling club would be prepared to sell player-x for.
=================================================
That's already been answered.
They are variable, and subjective.

The selling club will value him at the higher end of the range they think clubs will pay, and the buying club will value him at the lower end of what they think they can pay without being outbid. The negotiation will start from that, and will develop depending on other variable factors, such as how many other clubs involved.

All of tose factors will vary depending on the circumstances of the parties involved. It's unlikely, if Carroll's transfer fee hadn't been linked to the Torres fee, that LFC would have paid 35m, in any other circumstances. It's unlikely, too, that Newcastle would have asked for it, unless they didn't really want to sell at all.

But in those circumstances, they deemed it worith the price, and Chelsea were willing to cover that price +15m, largely because Roman was just determined to get Torres.

But if those transfers hadn't gone through, the circumstances would have changed by the summer, and the prices might have changed accordingly. Neither player was worth that money to any other club, but the only valuation that matters is the one that was paid.

Any other valuation is just a finger-in-the-air guess, and meaningless. Players do not have an intrinsic value other than what somebody is willing to pay for them, like any other commodity in any other market.

If nobody wants to biy them then their valuation is zero, no matter what the selling club thinks.

Let's just settle this by agreeing that I'm right. Accurate valuations will never exist.

Axel witsel is never 'worth' £30m or whatever benfica sold him for, it's the fact that the buyer (zenit or anzhi?) have got money to burn and were happy to pay up. Good player? Yes. 'Worth' as much or as good as fabregas? Don't be silly.

Also, you've forgotten about buyout clauses. Ronaldo's clause is £1bn and messi's is £230m, is ronaldo 4 times better?

Let's just settle this by agreeing that I'm right. Accurate valuations will never exist.
================================================
We already agree, in that sense. A valuation is nothing more than a negotiating position, and therefore meaningless if nobody wants to negotiate at that price.

Clubs will negotiate on the basis of several variable factors, and the player's ability is only one of those factors.

Gary Birtles. Just didn't really work.

Marcio Amoroso for 25m Euros to Dortmund in 2001. His price and his destabilizing influence in the dressing room was one of the main reasons why they came within a hair's breadth of bankruptcy a couple of years later.

RipleysCat (U1862)

Oh good, it's you. You end your initial post to me with some needless bravado - where an issue is subjective, as this is, you have no place for such arrogance. You've littered this thread with critical comments of people's views, as if you're in some sort of authority on the matter. Just get on with giving your opinion.

You pick out my suggestion that Torres was not valued at £50 million, and claim he was. Well, that all depends on what context of valuation you are using, and who is doing the valuing.

Going by an accountants approach; balance sheets will determine players as current assets, which are capitalised at acquisition cost, depreciating over time. If you want to use that fine. But that then means that Danny Welbeck is currently valued at £0.

Or, one could argue that a player's value equates to the club's total expenditure i.e. transfer fee and wages. I suggest that's naive, as it suggests transfer fees such as Torres have been calculated carefully by Chelsea - which I somehow doubt.

I would strongly suggest that a transfer fee needn't be the main driver behind a player valuation - afterall, are transferred players the only players that can have a value assigned? What about Gerrard, or Hart? Transfer fees are often a good indication, but not always.

True value leads into a conversation about probable contribution, on and off the pitch, not to mention a whole host of arguable contributions. At this stage, it becomes a rather complicated conversation that is probably too far for a forum - but I hope I've demonstrated the reasoning behind my view.

In short, I refute that a transfer fee equates to value; particularly when considering a transfer conducted by someone for whom money is 'no object'. I suggest that Chelsea paid what they needed to acquire Torres - not what they thought his value was.

Feel free to explain why you do not share this opinion. But please, for the sake of reasoned conversation, don't do so with an arrogance that you are right so everyone else is wrong and understands nothing about it, because you'd be more wrong than you could realise on this anonymous forum.


One last point - the reason it was brought up was in the context of Suarez.

Even if you don't agree with my views re: valuation, you must surely see the lack of logic in using one transfer - made in such hasty circumstances - as the basis for the valuation of another player.

De gea is looking a turkey for the price of him.

Carrolls fee was mega but it was Chelsea who were the biggest victims of that saga as it meant the Torres fee was going up too.

Either way, Liverpool stood to make £15m profit

Stupid logic, when you could of made 50 million profit.

And regardless of carols fee, Torres was never gonna leave for anything under 45 mil. So that's bs.

De gea is looking a turkey for the price of him.

---

Loz you do talk balls sometimes dont you.

So you think the most expensive keeper in British history is performing well?

Ask G Nev what he thinks

So you think the most expensive keeper in British history is performing well?

Ask G Nev what he thinks

-----

Im suprised at G Nev's comments to be fair.

De Gea kept us in the game against Spurs and even if he made one mistake that game it was hardly his fault.

He is doing a great job for a foreign young keeper and if we got rid of players after a season and a half then what is the world coming to?

He is showing promise, look at Hart he makes mistakes too does that mean he should be sold on?

Hart cost a third of the price.

The point is bad transfers and for the price of Degea you have to say not value for money hence bad transfer.

I know I'm bitter blaa blaa blaa.

If he wasn't messing up he wouldn't have die hards like nev and a few people criticising him would he.

I'm very surprised that you've listed Robinho (in his first season he was our top scorer and the fourth-top scorer in the league) yet have omitted Roque Santa Cruz.

£17.5m for twenty games and three goals, having apparently turned up to his medical on crutches. And people wonder why so few of us shed a tear when Hughes got the sack! RSC was a worse signing than £10m for Bridge, which is really saying something.

Hart cost a third of the price.

The point is bad transfers and for the price of Degea you have to say not value for money hence bad transfer.

I know I'm bitter blaa blaa blaa.

If he wasn't messing up he wouldn't have die hards like nev and a few people criticising him would he.

------

16M isnt that bad for a keeper. Besides its not about the value in this case as we see De Gea as a long term keeper as you do Hart.

De Gea is no worse than Hart IMO who if he wasnt English would be going through the same treatment.

Stupid logic, when you could of made 50 million profit.

And regardless of carols fee, Torres was never gonna leave for anything under 45 mil. So that's bs.
----------

Well, no because Liverpool needed a repalcement - it was the last day remember.

They earmarked Carroll and Chelsea kept upping the offer

Is it bs in your opinion? Because my view is backed by the owners

I thought this thread was closed.

The masses decided Carroll is arguably the worst transfer of all time.

QED.

posted 2 minutes ago
I thought this thread was closed.

The masses decided Carroll is arguably the worst transfer of all time.

---------------------

No doubt in my mind

Is it bs in your opinion? Because my view is backed by the owners

Oh well good for you. Do you not think they are capable of telling porkies?

So you deluded united fans recon de gea was better value than Hart?

In fact I got my sums wrong he's under 1/16th the cost of donut boy an you can't see how in comparison he's a bad transfer.

Blinkered arrogant united fans.

you still here loz,

havent seen you infesting our boards in a while.

heard you were dead

So you deluded united fans recon de gea was better value than Hart?

Who's said he is better Value?

I thought this thread was closed.

The masses decided Carroll is arguably the worst transfer of all time
----------

Then you need to keep up with the thread - this was a tangent discussing who was financially at a loss over the Carroll saga

Dunc, you still respond to that bam.

You accurately describe him as an 'infestation' and infestations need to be eradicated. As i guess he was eradicated from our boards.

I don't mind WUMS - heck i dont mind Binky - but that chap never debates, he is proven to be a simpleton whose sole reason for coming to this boards is to hurl impotent insults or perpetually WUM united.

What a very strange chap.

totally agree RC,

my comment was more in hope than jest

If De Gea reitred today, based on performances & fee, he'd be considered the single biggest flop of a keeper of all time. Without question.

But he's a recent signing who hasn't settled yet and he's still a kid learning his trade.

I reckon in a couple years time he'll be viewed as a very good signing. 17 mil good? probably not. But if the extra few mil is spread over a decade it's irrelevant.