"Lets expand that 3 years to another 6 or 7 and who comes out higher though?"
In which case let's expand it to 20 and include inflation then. We built three teams in a very short period of time because you can't buy a team capable of winning the title directly from the starting position we were.
Even then, that's still a moot point when it comes to the correlation between wages, squad value and finishing position.
SAF
Apologies for the delay in responding. Also apologies for being rather curt with my replies to you the other day.
Firstly, squad value is not dictated by transfer fees for one obvious reason. We need only think of (for example) United's "golden generation" as to why this is the case. Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, etc cost United nothing in transfer fees, yet all added significantly to the value of the squad.
Nor is squad value based on predicted transfer fees. The value of a player is actually distorted when it comes to transfer fees (predicted or actual). When a club sells a player, it isn't only seeking a transfer fee that equates to the value of the player, but also is seeking an additional compensation figure that enables the selling club to go out and replace that player while incurring no financial loss for doing so. Or if they aren't going to replace him, the compensation figure compensates for a loss in revenue that the club may experience due to losing one of their assets. Otherwise there is no financial justification in selling the player to begin with.
Think of City a few years ago when we were chasing Lescott from Everton. Lescott's value to Everton's squad value wasn't £24m. Yet that is the price that City paid for his services. Everton would have had a bottom line figure in regards to Lescott's value, and thus any transfer fee that they would accept for a player under contract would have to exceed that figure. Because they knew that City had money, then that figure rises accordingly.
To work out the squad value of any club, we have to think of players as assets and how much they are actually worth to the club, that is, how much their registration financially benefits a club after their costs to the club have been taken into account. Such benefits include the merchandise they bring in to their benefit to the team on the pitch which results in increased performance when it comes to competition. A set of players who result in Champions League football being attained, or a higher position in the league being attained, or even simply avoiding relegation, will result in more money being generated for the club.
It's for this reason why players who are equal in terms of talent will invariably go for bigger fees if they are sold by a successful/bigger club as opposed to if they are sold by a mid-level club. Their status (or stock) is higher, not because of their ability, but because of who they were employed by, and the exposure that signing such a player can have on a club who signs them.
This is why Real Madrid for example, can sell a player they no longer want for a fee that is higher than 99% of all previous transfer fees. A la Ozil from Madrid to Arsenal. It's why cash rich clubs will always be attracted to a "marquee" signing. And it's why attacking players (who naturally become more high-profile) invariably cost more than defenders.
Melton, as always, raises a very good point. People tend to look at the amount City have spend since the takeover, and added it all together in order to use it as a stick in which to beat City with. A la the kind of comment "a billion spent and they still can't get out of the CL group stages". Yet City have never had or even been close to having a squad that is valued at a billion. The value of City's squad at any one time has fallen in line with the value of the top club's squads. So as a collective group of players, while it is arguable that City should have done better in the CL, the suggestion that they should be doing much better in the competition is ridiculous. For such a comment is made completely out of context.
To bring it back round to the point that you made (to which I originally replied), of course Aguero is a better player than Santa Cruz. Over the course of his City career, Aguero is worth a lot more than £20m than Santa Cruz (the difference in price that we paid for each player). So to judge it on the transfer fee and use that as an indicator as to what their value is to City's squad is simply incorrect. To put this another way, we paid £32m for Robinho, yet Tevez (who cost £7m less) ultimately proved much more valuable to us. Or paying £14m for Bellamy who proved to be much more valuable than the £18m we paid for Jo. Or the £6m we paid for Kompany as opposed to the £16m we paid for Toure and £24m paid for Lescott.
Excellent post Ripley, and a train of thought that I didn't go down (I imagine even that lengthy post could have been even longer...?) and completely agree with.
In which case let's expand it to 20 and include inflation then. We built three teams in a very short period of time because you can't buy a team capable of winning the title directly from the starting position we were.
............................................................
So you spent what we did in 20 years (plus inflation)
Even with the huge inflation we can't quite get United's spend up to City's but even if we say that is true...
Doing 20 years of spending in a few years will certainly give you an advantage!
.................................................
Even then, that's still a moot point when it comes to the correlation between wages, squad value and finishing position.
................................................
Squad value is a meaningless measure when you can artificially keep it low with a huge net spend, like City did...
Basically without effecting the squad value you can keep buying £20M players until one works out and get rid of the ones that don't work out for pennies...
This helps a team considerably against one who just buys the one £20M player and has to make the most of them whether they are crap or not.
But like I said United can do something similar now, but City can't afford to do so as much.
So whilst City will have to make their individual signings more of a success now, United can afford to throw them away and try again, much like City could.
Ripley basically you turned round and called me an idiot and then what you wrote actually somewhat agrees with me...
Its based on an estimation of the players value, the only difference is you have added in a merchandise aspect....
But I never specified that we weren't including merchandising in an estimated value.
______________________________
So if its not based on transfer fees at all I can only assume its based on predicted values of players?
-----------
Nope. You assume wrong.
____________________________
So basically with this little back and fore I infact assumed correctly.
Not that any of this matters anyway.
All I said was the advantage has switched from City and Chelsea with their huge spending to United now, previously City and Chelsea could outspend United but now the tables have turned and it will be interesting to see how well City and Chelsea can do against a bigger spending side.
We're both doing OK up to now and things will be different next year when our FFP ban is over.
You'll never be able to spend as recklessly as you have in the past 10 years and that will makes things harder, you will infact have to compete as the poorer team something which didn't result in much success in the majority of City's history...
We haven't spent recklessly as has been pointed out several times. We had to start from scratch and build up a decent squad in stages. Lemons like Robinho and Jo have been offset with great players like Kompany and Zabaleta whilst the likes of Silva and Aguero have proved to be fantastic value for money.
I don't think anyone, aside from you just now has been silly enough to suggest City's spending was not reckless...
Certainly if you compare the spending to the achievement it certainly looks reckless...
I wonder if there has ever been such a big spending team that failed so continuously on the biggest stage...
Or that won so little for a spend so big.....
Its based on an estimation of the players value, the only difference is you have added in a merchandise aspect....
---------------------
That wasn't the "only difference" I added. Go back and read my post again.
The estimation of a players value is just that, an estimation. Yet the value of a player to his contracted club isn't estimated (as in roughly calculated). Players are assets, and for any business to "roughly calculate" the value of an asset would be, quite simply, ridiculously naive.
Or that won so little for a spend so big.....
5 trophys so far. Let's assess United in 3 years time and bear in mind that their starting point was league champions, not 17th in the table.
So then it is estimated...
Note my post excluding nothing about contract length, merchandising or other aspects you would obviously take into account whilst estimating a players value.
Maybe your the person who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Also Forbes have been ridiculously naive in the past for one
To say that discussing footballers value on a forum is that is quite silly on your part and I suspect part of a rather angry rant.
Binky we've won many times what you have by spending far less already, as have most teams in existence
Certainly if you compare the spending to the achievement it certainly looks reckless...
-------------------
I can't agree with that at all. City got taken over in September 2008. Since then, we have a net spent on transfer fees in the region of £450m.
In terms of the CL, we've achieved nothing of note, but domestically it couldn't have gone much better - from breaking into the top four, to two titles and two cup wins.
How does City's net spending over the last 6 years compare to other clubs? Well, during that time:
Chelsea's net spend has been £289m
United's net spend has been £250m
Of course, United and Chelsea clubs were miles ahead of where City were in 2008 in terms of squad quality. So clearly, just in order to catch up to United and Chelsea, City would have to spend more money than them.
In terms of European spending, the last 5 transfer windows shows:
PSG £235m net
United £165m net
Barcelona £155m net
Chelsea £137m net
Real Madrid £126m net
City £107m net
Except City started spending a decent little bit of money before the Sheikh came as well, Jo for £18M wasn't exactly in line with City's usual business prior to that time.
Even if we don't include that though you have won an FA cup and a league cup which is hardly anything to write home about. Even one of your two league title wins was on goal difference and you have been a bit of a disaster in Europe in general.
TBH Its starting to look like you will need to you will need to do some serious spending to try and at least get to the CL knockout stages regularly and if you don't spend you will probably begin to fall away over the next couple of years domestically.
Sign in if you want to comment
All I heard.......
Page 3 of 3
posted on 29/10/14
"Lets expand that 3 years to another 6 or 7 and who comes out higher though?"
In which case let's expand it to 20 and include inflation then. We built three teams in a very short period of time because you can't buy a team capable of winning the title directly from the starting position we were.
posted on 29/10/14
Even then, that's still a moot point when it comes to the correlation between wages, squad value and finishing position.
posted on 29/10/14
SAF
Apologies for the delay in responding. Also apologies for being rather curt with my replies to you the other day.
Firstly, squad value is not dictated by transfer fees for one obvious reason. We need only think of (for example) United's "golden generation" as to why this is the case. Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, etc cost United nothing in transfer fees, yet all added significantly to the value of the squad.
Nor is squad value based on predicted transfer fees. The value of a player is actually distorted when it comes to transfer fees (predicted or actual). When a club sells a player, it isn't only seeking a transfer fee that equates to the value of the player, but also is seeking an additional compensation figure that enables the selling club to go out and replace that player while incurring no financial loss for doing so. Or if they aren't going to replace him, the compensation figure compensates for a loss in revenue that the club may experience due to losing one of their assets. Otherwise there is no financial justification in selling the player to begin with.
Think of City a few years ago when we were chasing Lescott from Everton. Lescott's value to Everton's squad value wasn't £24m. Yet that is the price that City paid for his services. Everton would have had a bottom line figure in regards to Lescott's value, and thus any transfer fee that they would accept for a player under contract would have to exceed that figure. Because they knew that City had money, then that figure rises accordingly.
To work out the squad value of any club, we have to think of players as assets and how much they are actually worth to the club, that is, how much their registration financially benefits a club after their costs to the club have been taken into account. Such benefits include the merchandise they bring in to their benefit to the team on the pitch which results in increased performance when it comes to competition. A set of players who result in Champions League football being attained, or a higher position in the league being attained, or even simply avoiding relegation, will result in more money being generated for the club.
It's for this reason why players who are equal in terms of talent will invariably go for bigger fees if they are sold by a successful/bigger club as opposed to if they are sold by a mid-level club. Their status (or stock) is higher, not because of their ability, but because of who they were employed by, and the exposure that signing such a player can have on a club who signs them.
This is why Real Madrid for example, can sell a player they no longer want for a fee that is higher than 99% of all previous transfer fees. A la Ozil from Madrid to Arsenal. It's why cash rich clubs will always be attracted to a "marquee" signing. And it's why attacking players (who naturally become more high-profile) invariably cost more than defenders.
Melton, as always, raises a very good point. People tend to look at the amount City have spend since the takeover, and added it all together in order to use it as a stick in which to beat City with. A la the kind of comment "a billion spent and they still can't get out of the CL group stages". Yet City have never had or even been close to having a squad that is valued at a billion. The value of City's squad at any one time has fallen in line with the value of the top club's squads. So as a collective group of players, while it is arguable that City should have done better in the CL, the suggestion that they should be doing much better in the competition is ridiculous. For such a comment is made completely out of context.
To bring it back round to the point that you made (to which I originally replied), of course Aguero is a better player than Santa Cruz. Over the course of his City career, Aguero is worth a lot more than £20m than Santa Cruz (the difference in price that we paid for each player). So to judge it on the transfer fee and use that as an indicator as to what their value is to City's squad is simply incorrect. To put this another way, we paid £32m for Robinho, yet Tevez (who cost £7m less) ultimately proved much more valuable to us. Or paying £14m for Bellamy who proved to be much more valuable than the £18m we paid for Jo. Or the £6m we paid for Kompany as opposed to the £16m we paid for Toure and £24m paid for Lescott.
posted on 29/10/14
Excellent post Ripley, and a train of thought that I didn't go down (I imagine even that lengthy post could have been even longer...?) and completely agree with.
posted on 6/11/14
In which case let's expand it to 20 and include inflation then. We built three teams in a very short period of time because you can't buy a team capable of winning the title directly from the starting position we were.
............................................................
So you spent what we did in 20 years (plus inflation)
Even with the huge inflation we can't quite get United's spend up to City's but even if we say that is true...
Doing 20 years of spending in a few years will certainly give you an advantage!
.................................................
Even then, that's still a moot point when it comes to the correlation between wages, squad value and finishing position.
................................................
Squad value is a meaningless measure when you can artificially keep it low with a huge net spend, like City did...
Basically without effecting the squad value you can keep buying £20M players until one works out and get rid of the ones that don't work out for pennies...
This helps a team considerably against one who just buys the one £20M player and has to make the most of them whether they are crap or not.
But like I said United can do something similar now, but City can't afford to do so as much.
So whilst City will have to make their individual signings more of a success now, United can afford to throw them away and try again, much like City could.
posted on 6/11/14
Ripley basically you turned round and called me an idiot and then what you wrote actually somewhat agrees with me...
Its based on an estimation of the players value, the only difference is you have added in a merchandise aspect....
But I never specified that we weren't including merchandising in an estimated value.
______________________________
So if its not based on transfer fees at all I can only assume its based on predicted values of players?
-----------
Nope. You assume wrong.
____________________________
So basically with this little back and fore I infact assumed correctly.
Not that any of this matters anyway.
All I said was the advantage has switched from City and Chelsea with their huge spending to United now, previously City and Chelsea could outspend United but now the tables have turned and it will be interesting to see how well City and Chelsea can do against a bigger spending side.
posted on 6/11/14
We're both doing OK up to now and things will be different next year when our FFP ban is over.
posted on 6/11/14
You'll never be able to spend as recklessly as you have in the past 10 years and that will makes things harder, you will infact have to compete as the poorer team something which didn't result in much success in the majority of City's history...
posted on 6/11/14
We haven't spent recklessly as has been pointed out several times. We had to start from scratch and build up a decent squad in stages. Lemons like Robinho and Jo have been offset with great players like Kompany and Zabaleta whilst the likes of Silva and Aguero have proved to be fantastic value for money.
posted on 6/11/14
I don't think anyone, aside from you just now has been silly enough to suggest City's spending was not reckless...
Certainly if you compare the spending to the achievement it certainly looks reckless...
I wonder if there has ever been such a big spending team that failed so continuously on the biggest stage...
Or that won so little for a spend so big.....
posted on 6/11/14
Its based on an estimation of the players value, the only difference is you have added in a merchandise aspect....
---------------------
That wasn't the "only difference" I added. Go back and read my post again.
The estimation of a players value is just that, an estimation. Yet the value of a player to his contracted club isn't estimated (as in roughly calculated). Players are assets, and for any business to "roughly calculate" the value of an asset would be, quite simply, ridiculously naive.
posted on 6/11/14
Or that won so little for a spend so big.....
5 trophys so far. Let's assess United in 3 years time and bear in mind that their starting point was league champions, not 17th in the table.
posted on 6/11/14
So then it is estimated...
Note my post excluding nothing about contract length, merchandising or other aspects you would obviously take into account whilst estimating a players value.
Maybe your the person who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Also Forbes have been ridiculously naive in the past for one
To say that discussing footballers value on a forum is that is quite silly on your part and I suspect part of a rather angry rant.
Binky we've won many times what you have by spending far less already, as have most teams in existence
posted on 6/11/14
Certainly if you compare the spending to the achievement it certainly looks reckless...
-------------------
I can't agree with that at all. City got taken over in September 2008. Since then, we have a net spent on transfer fees in the region of £450m.
In terms of the CL, we've achieved nothing of note, but domestically it couldn't have gone much better - from breaking into the top four, to two titles and two cup wins.
How does City's net spending over the last 6 years compare to other clubs? Well, during that time:
Chelsea's net spend has been £289m
United's net spend has been £250m
Of course, United and Chelsea clubs were miles ahead of where City were in 2008 in terms of squad quality. So clearly, just in order to catch up to United and Chelsea, City would have to spend more money than them.
In terms of European spending, the last 5 transfer windows shows:
PSG £235m net
United £165m net
Barcelona £155m net
Chelsea £137m net
Real Madrid £126m net
City £107m net
posted on 7/11/14
Except City started spending a decent little bit of money before the Sheikh came as well, Jo for £18M wasn't exactly in line with City's usual business prior to that time.
Even if we don't include that though you have won an FA cup and a league cup which is hardly anything to write home about. Even one of your two league title wins was on goal difference and you have been a bit of a disaster in Europe in general.
TBH Its starting to look like you will need to you will need to do some serious spending to try and at least get to the CL knockout stages regularly and if you don't spend you will probably begin to fall away over the next couple of years domestically.
Page 3 of 3