comment by really? (U17250)
posted 8 minutes ago
Our chances of signing Lukaku would, relatively speaking, be very good. **

he's said he wants to leave for a CL club, that's not you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple 'yes' or 'no' question for you:

Do you think he'd consider a move to United this summer if we had a bid accepted by Everton?

I suppose it depends on the club. I do think in some cases the asking price for United can end up being more than for other clubs.

You won't get a simple yes or no out of really. He's a fackwit. And for some reason has some strange obsession with United. Not sure why given Everton are an irrelevance to us.

Darren probably right....richest or certainly close to it club in the world....it's going to factor to the selling club.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 8 minutes ago
But when discussing transfer fees what they're worth doesn't really matter.

Lukaku isn't worth £65m but if that is what he will cost to buy then that is all that matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as any United and Everton transaction would be concerned, he'd be worth exactly what we'd be willing to pay for him.

No player has an absolute value. Each is 'worth' different amounts to different clubs in different circumstances.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
I suppose it depends on the club. I do think in some cases the asking price for United can end up being more than for other clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is definitely the case. Comes with the territory of being one of the richest clubs in the world, unfortunately.

Rosso, yeah I agree. That was just in response to VC.

Footballing transfers are mental now, though. So I do think many figures are overinflated, so in that respect the the player is worth as VC puts it is still different to what a club will pay.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)

posted 12 minutes ago

But when discussing transfer fees what they're worth doesn't really matter.

..............

What a silly statement.

....................

Lukaku isn't worth £65m but if that is what he will cost to buy then that is all that matters.

..............

That is a much better statement. Which leads to why the first statement was silly.

But the first statement isn't silly.

A player not being worth said transfer fee makes no difference to what we'll have to pay in this inflated market.

That's what Rob was getting at and it's true.

Mudd thinks we should be looking at getting a player on the level Ronaldo was at when he left which is laughable as the market isn't like that.

Even though in reality I'd agree that for £65m you'd want a player of that calibre, but obviously that's not the case any more.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Rosso, yeah I agree. That was just in response to VC.

Footballing transfers are mental now, though. So I do think many figures are overinflated, so in that respect the the player is worth as VC puts it is still different to what a club will pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see VC's point but the huge increases in top clubs' revenues have to be taken into account for two key reasons.

Firstly, and most obviously, because if the selling clubs know that the financial giants have money in the bank and are willing to spend it, they are going to demand it.

Secondly, and more importantly, every additional Premier League position, considering the value of qualifying for the CL or EL, the prize money, the sponsorship deals, global merchandising, the extra TV money, etc. is worth more and more every season. Clubs are absolutely desperate to finish as high up the league table as possible and secure European football.

As each additional place - considering in full context what it means - becomes more valuable, clubs will be driven to invest more and more in on-field talent, and prices for younger players in particular (with a good resale value), will continue to spiral.

A player not being worth said transfer fee makes no difference to what we'll have to pay in this inflated market.

.............

Well it does, if we consider the player not worth it and don't pay the fee.

That doesn't effect what we'll have to pay. I'm talking about the transfer market being inflated beyond a player's worth. I'm not talking about whether the club think it's worth it and decide to pay it, I'm talking about asking prices.

I keep hearing about today's inflated market, and yet the combined transfer fees of Alli, Mahrez, Kante, and Alderweireld wouldn't add up to one Memphis.

If United could buy some good players cheaply, they could afford both Lukaku and Griezemann. Or, here's an idea, go and buy Lukaku for £18m (transfer to chelsea) or £28m (to everton), or griezemann for £24m, before he went to atletico.

Could make the same point with dozens of players - Coman, Dybala, Kroos etc - yet instead we end up with herrera and morgan at £50m the pair warming the bench.

The "wait for them to become really good and then buy them for £50m" model isn't really sustainable, especially when some of your big bets don't pay off - Martial looks good, ADM didn't.

You keepnhearing about this inflated market because it exists.

The fact others have bought good players for small fees doesn't change this. And with the impending sky sports deal it's only likely to increase.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)

posted 3 minutes ago

That doesn't effect what we'll have to pay.

.............

It will if you can negotiate a lower fee with the selling club.

You are aware that this does happen, yes?

The selling club say 65 million, you say 40 million then you both agree on 50 million.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 38 seconds ago
You keepnhearing about this inflated market because it exists.

The fact others have bought good players for small fees doesn't change this. And with the impending sky sports deal it's only likely to increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
really? how did chelsea get fabregas for £27m then? or £35m for alexis sanchez? payet for £10m? alderweireld and van dijk for less than a rojo?

city seem to be bad buyers too, but it is a myth that every club in europe is going around spending like a sailor on shore leave.

But that's still the club paying what the selling club want.

If United don't wanna pay it then that doesn't change anything.

Yes really. Transfer fees on the whole have been inflated. Especially when compared to 2009, which is what we were talking about in regard to Ronaldo.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes really. Transfer fees on the whole have been inflated. Especially when compared to 2009, which is what we were talking about in regard to Ronaldo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
transfer fees have gone up, sure; but when people refer to an "inflated market" that carries the connotation that there are no good bargains out there any more. to use someone else's words, "no value in the market".

but that's just an excuse for poor scouting, fees have gone up, prize and tv money too, the market in general doesn't seem any better or worse value than it was 5-10 years ago, and the ability to buy (and sell) well is what it always was.

No it doesn't. You just percieve it to because you're obssessed with United overspending in the market and not getting bargains. An inflated market doesn't mean bargains aren't there to be had. Even bargains can be inflated.

Don

In a way there is an inflated market and a deflated market.

There is ample evidence to support both.

Some players go for ridiculous fees well above their worth. Think sideshow from Chelsea to PSG.

Then there are players who go ridiculously cheap, as you have clearly shown.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 49 seconds ago
No it doesn't. You just percieve it to because you're obssessed with United overspending in the market and not getting bargains. An inflated market doesn't mean bargains aren't there to be had. Even bargains can be inflated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, it does.

inflated market does not mean a market that has seen prices go up; by definition it means a market where prices are too high.

and of course a high price doesn't mean poor value, obviously martial was better value than schneiderlin. but even with £470-500m of revenues a year, united can't afford to buy two players for £60m every summer, and have only one of them work out.

It does because the richer clubs are inflating the market. And you can still get bargains within said market.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago

Don

In a way there is an inflated market and a deflated market.

There is ample evidence to support both.

Some players go for ridiculous fees well above their worth. Think sideshow from Chelsea to PSG.

Then there are players who go ridiculously cheap, as you have clearly shown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, i agree.

i take exception to claims like those of dktf that "Footballing transfers are mental now, though", as i said that's just an excuse for poor scouting and poor spending.

and apparently however many examples of transfers i can give that are "not mental" makes no difference, they're just bizarre exceptions, rather than the norm.

anyway, my broader point is that you can't rely on a transfer policy that sees you just wait for players to establish themselves as top class and then drop £50m plus on them...not when you have neither a sugar daddy nor a helpful spanish government, and i'm afraid not when you have 3-4-5 positions in the team that need fixing either.

That's not an excuse for poor spending. They just are.