Strong rumours that Bougherra will be off to Marseille in the window, knowing Charlton's record in the transfer market I don't suppose there is a sell on, is there?
Why is he apparently worth £5 million when Rangers try to sell him but only £2 million when we sell him?
Same applied to Luke Young! When we off loaded him cheaply for £2.5 million (compared to the then unproven Gareth Bale) it was because of his "dodgy" medical history. Yet Villa gave Boro nearly double that for him!
I know we needed to save wages with both these sales but even so why do we only get 50% of the true market value of the player.
With the exception of Darren Bent we have been well and truly stitched up transferwise.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Why is he apparently worth £5 million when Rangers try to sell him but only £2 million when we sell him?
Same applied to Luke Young! When we off loaded him cheaply for £2.5 million (compared to the then unproven Gareth Bale) it was because of his "dodgy" medical history. Yet Villa gave Boro nearly double that for him!
I know we needed to save wages with both these sales but even so why do we only get 50% of the true market value of the player.
With the exception of Darren Bent we have been well and truly stitched up transferwise.
Cue Henry on his white charger.....:-)
And on cue.
1. That's what boro were and no one else were offering. Was it cheap at the time or is that just hindsight.
2. Boro and I guess Rangers are in a stronger negotiating position so when Villa say "how much?" they can afford to say "£4m or no deal". We can't
3. Darren Bent is one very big exception
4. We haven't been stiched up. It's like saying that cos you sold a house and it then got sold for more a few years later you were done. You weren't. You got the value at the time. Another time, another situation then it's a different deal.
5. Have Rangers sold Magic for £5m or is that just paper talk. Why are we "stitched up" by a paper rumour?
6. Edited after reading Mart77 post. The length of contract remaining is a big factor. Obviously Young had just signed a contract with Boro so Villa had to pay more.
I can see why some might say we have achieved poor deals on some transfers but the fee alone doesn't tell you how desperate we are for money, how much the player wants to go, lenght of contract left, fitness of player and a million other things than can effect the fee. It can frustrating when you see the same players going for more cash than you got but i don't think it can be put solely down to the club's poor transfer negotiations.
'It can frustrating when you see the same players going for more cash than you got but i don't think it can be put solely down to the club's poor transfer negotiations. '
Maybe the club should of kept Andrew Mills at the time Young went for this type of business.
We have always been the same, I have been supporting the lads for 40 years and apart from the sale of Darren Bent I cannot recal a time I have thought to myself "That is a good price"
During those 40 years we have largely been known as a selling club rather than a buying one and I get the impression the boards of directors down through the years took what they could get rather than playing hard ball and holding out for more and the true market value of a player.
No need to worry with the current Directors and Parky though, at this rate we will not own any players to sell, they will all be on loan or too old to sell on.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Why is he apparently worth £5 million when Rangers try to sell him but only £2 million when we sell him?
Same applied to Luke Young! When we off loaded him cheaply for £2.5 million (compared to the then unproven Gareth Bale) it was because of his "dodgy" medical history. Yet Villa gave Boro nearly double that for him!
I know we needed to save wages with both these sales but even so why do we only get 50% of the true market value of the player.
With the exception of Darren Bent we have been well and truly stitched up transferwise.
Cue Henry on his white charger.....:-)
And on cue.
1. That's what boro were and no one else were offering. Was it cheap at the time or is that just hindsight.
2. Boro and I guess Rangers are in a stronger negotiating position so when Villa say "how much?" they can afford to say "£4m or no deal". We can't
3. Darren Bent is one very big exception
4. We haven't been stiched up. It's like saying that cos you sold a house and it then got sold for more a few years later you were done. You weren't. You got the value at the time. Another time, another situation then it's a different deal.
5. Have Rangers sold Magic for £5m or is that just paper talk. Why are we "stitched up" by a paper rumour?
Re Young: I posted at the time it happened that it was incongruous that a current England international was sold for less than half the price of a promising but unproven youngster so no hindsight there.
What is hindsight is to question whether it would have been worth using the £25 million Dowie and Pardew have wasted between them on trying to keep some of our proven players like Young and Bent D for a season. They just might have got us promoted at the first attempt.
Re Magic: Ceefax mentioned Newcastle offering £4.5 million the other day so, whilst technically paper talk at present, it is looking highly probable that 5 months on he will be sold for about twice as much as we sold him for which, given that we are in the middle of a credit crunch so prices are hardly inflated, suggests to me that we undersold him in August.
players are only worth what people want to pay, this is affected by who the selling club are and what their league status is, then there is supply and demand, but also transfer window issues which usually inflate. its also 6 months later and playing at a totally different level.
'What is hindsight is to question whether it would have been worth using the £25 million Dowie and Pardew have wasted between them on trying to keep some of our proven players like Young and Bent D for a season. They just might have got us promoted at the first attempt.'
spot on len. not being a billy big bo**ox I posted something similar at the time both were sold. Costed more in the long run :-(
All clubs bar maybe Man Utd and Real Madrid are selling clubs. You could add Chelsea and maybe now Man City but all other clubs sell their stars to bigger clubs. Spurs do, Arsenal do, we do. We have just moved up and down the food chain over the years
As for the last 40 years
Scott Parker - got more for him than Chelsea or Newcastle did
Lee Boywer - Record for a teenager in UK
Eddie Firmani - British record (OK more than 40 years ago)
In any case we paid a few hundred thousand for Kinsella and let him go for nothing. Bad negotiating and lack of playing hard ball by directors? Or maybe the real value was the 5 or 6 seasons he gave us which were worth a lot more than the money we paid/recieved. Ditto Mendonca.
Len - it's easy to say now that we undersold Bougherra but at the time we were desperate for money, Rangers will have known that, and the player wanted to go. He could've gone to Rangers and been a failure or got a long term injury, who knows, it's only being suggested now that we undersold him as he's done well and is moving to a premier league club.
At the end of the day we can only get what a club is willing to pay. If Charlton had their way we'd have sold him for 10m, but that wasn't on offer.
Charlton desperately needing money + player wanting to go = buying club having the advantage in negotiations.
[cite]Posted By: pete_tong1[/cite]'What is hindsight is to question whether it would have been worth using the £25 million Dowie and Pardew have wasted between them on trying to keep some of our proven players like Young and Bent D for a season. They just might have got us promoted at the first attempt.'
spot on len. not being a billy big bo**ox I posted something similar at the time both were sold. Costed more in the long run :-(
And you know for a fact that they both wanted to stay and play in the Championship? Of course they did.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
In any case we paid a few hundred thousand for Kinsella and let him go for nothing. Bad negotiating and lack of playing hard ball by directors? Or maybe the real value was the 5 or 6 seasons he gave us which were worth a lot more than the money we paid/recieved. Ditto Mendonca.
[cite]Posted By: pete_tong1[/cite]'What is hindsight is to question whether it would have been worth using the £25 million Dowie and Pardew have wasted between them on trying to keep some of our proven players like Young and Bent D for a season. They just might have got us promoted at the first attempt.'
spot on len. not being a billy big bo**ox I posted something similar at the time both were sold. Costed more in the long run :-(
And no doubt if we'd kept Bent and he'd got injured the following season or we didn't get promoted and the 16m on offer suddenly became 7-8m then there'd be people on here saying we should've taken the 16m whilst we could!
[cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]Len - it's easy to say now that we undersold Bougherra but at the time we were desperate for money, Rangers will have known that, and the player wanted to go. He could've gone to Rangers and been a failure or got a long term injury, who knows, it's only being suggested now that we undersold him as he's done well and is moving to a premier league club.
At the end of the day we can only get what a club is willing to pay. If Charlton had their way we'd have sold him for 10m, but that wasn't on offer.
Charlton desperately needing money + player wanting to go = buying club having the advantage in negotiations.
Southampton are and have been as badly if not worse off financially than us yet they were still able to get £6 million for Gareth Bale at the same time as we got £2.5 million for Luke Young.
I think, since Curbs left at any rate, we have undersold some of our players.
You cite Kinsella: Curbishley was able to pay a few hundred thousand, get years of excellent service and still sell at a profit!
I think that Curbs forgot that we were a selling club in the last few years of his reign. He into the habit of paying good money both in terms of transfer fees and wages for older journeymen with no resale value. This left us in a bad financial and squad position when he left. Later managers certainly exacerbated the problem but the rot set in when we stopped being a 'selling club'.
Thing is Len I just cant see how you (one) can ever compare one transfer to another. There are too many differing factors.
For instance; Bale would have been on low wages and therefore Southampton less pressured to sell for a lower figure. Hence why Spurs had to make an offer they couldnt turn down. Also Bale would have been less likely to be pushing for a move.
Young (Eng Intl) would have been on high wages and was probably looking for a move, hence why Boro could make a more sensible offer and we accepted that.
It's not the first time that Rangers have cashed in on players that they have had for a few months.
They signed Boumsong for nothing and sold him to Newcastle for £8M after just 18 games. I wonder if Magic & Bouumsong have the same agent (Willie Mckay)
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Bale is a lot younger than Young and would have been in contract (for transfer fee purposes) until he was 24.
In the same way we got more for Bent than Arsenal got for Henry. I think Henry is a better player but he is older and his contract was running down.
And now my house if "worth" less than last year. Same house but different price. Why? Different market.
So if Jonjo doesn't walk before February we can look forward to a decent fee for him then applying the "Bale" principle?:-)
Unfortunately yes. I'd rather he played his whole career with us but like Parker and Bowyer if he goes I hope we can get top money for him. What we get will depend on how good he is, how many teams want him, which teams want him and what the market is like.
I think Spurs have more cause the complaint. Diaware £5m now £20m, Defoe £8m now £14m (I haven't checked those figures but you know what I mean).
Comments
http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Football/12085/Wenger_and_Benitez_linked_to_Bougherra_.aspx
We have had Superb Stoppers like Rufus & Costa but not footballers.
Pity he didn't show us how good he apparently is, while he was playing for us.
Same applied to Luke Young! When we off loaded him cheaply for £2.5 million (compared to the then unproven Gareth Bale) it was because of his "dodgy" medical history. Yet Villa gave Boro nearly double that for him!
I know we needed to save wages with both these sales but even so why do we only get 50% of the true market value of the player.
With the exception of Darren Bent we have been well and truly stitched up transferwise.
Cue Henry on his white charger.....:-)
And on cue.
1. That's what boro were and no one else were offering. Was it cheap at the time or is that just hindsight.
2. Boro and I guess Rangers are in a stronger negotiating position so when Villa say "how much?" they can afford to say "£4m or no deal". We can't
3. Darren Bent is one very big exception
4. We haven't been stiched up. It's like saying that cos you sold a house and it then got sold for more a few years later you were done. You weren't. You got the value at the time. Another time, another situation then it's a different deal.
5. Have Rangers sold Magic for £5m or is that just paper talk. Why are we "stitched up" by a paper rumour?
6. Edited after reading Mart77 post. The length of contract remaining is a big factor. Obviously Young had just signed a contract with Boro so Villa had to pay more.
Maybe the club should of kept Andrew Mills at the time Young went for this type of business.
Why did Andrew Mills go ?
During those 40 years we have largely been known as a selling club rather than a buying one and I get the impression the boards of directors down through the years took what they could get rather than playing hard ball and holding out for more and the true market value of a player.
No need to worry with the current Directors and Parky though, at this rate we will not own any players to sell, they will all be on loan or too old to sell on.
Re Young: I posted at the time it happened that it was incongruous that a current England international was sold for less than half the price of a promising but unproven youngster so no hindsight there.
What is hindsight is to question whether it would have been worth using the £25 million Dowie and Pardew have wasted between them on trying to keep some of our proven players like Young and Bent D for a season. They just might have got us promoted at the first attempt.
Re Magic: Ceefax mentioned Newcastle offering £4.5 million the other day so, whilst technically paper talk at present, it is looking highly probable that 5 months on he will be sold for about twice as much as we sold him for which, given that we are in the middle of a credit crunch so prices are hardly inflated, suggests to me that we undersold him in August.
spot on len. not being a billy big bo**ox I posted something similar at the time both were sold. Costed more in the long run :-(
As for the last 40 years
Scott Parker - got more for him than Chelsea or Newcastle did
Lee Boywer - Record for a teenager in UK
Eddie Firmani - British record (OK more than 40 years ago)
In any case we paid a few hundred thousand for Kinsella and let him go for nothing. Bad negotiating and lack of playing hard ball by directors? Or maybe the real value was the 5 or 6 seasons he gave us which were worth a lot more than the money we paid/recieved. Ditto Mendonca.
At the end of the day we can only get what a club is willing to pay. If Charlton had their way we'd have sold him for 10m, but that wasn't on offer.
Charlton desperately needing money + player wanting to go = buying club having the advantage in negotiations.
And you know for a fact that they both wanted to stay and play in the Championship? Of course they did.
We got £1m for Kins.
Thought we got a million off Villa for Kins?
And no doubt if we'd kept Bent and he'd got injured the following season or we didn't get promoted and the 16m on offer suddenly became 7-8m then there'd be people on here saying we should've taken the 16m whilst we could!
Well, just shows that
1. We do get good value sometimes
2. I'm going senile
3. I forget what 3. was going to be
Southampton are and have been as badly if not worse off financially than us yet they were still able to get £6 million for Gareth Bale at the same time as we got £2.5 million for Luke Young.
I think, since Curbs left at any rate, we have undersold some of our players.
You cite Kinsella: Curbishley was able to pay a few hundred thousand, get years of excellent service and still sell at a profit!
In the same way we got more for Bent than Arsenal got for Henry. I think Henry is a better player but he is older and his contract was running down.
And now my house if "worth" less than last year. Same house but different price. Why? Different market.
So if Jonjo doesn't walk before February we can look forward to a decent fee for him then applying the "Bale" principle?:-)
For instance; Bale would have been on low wages and therefore Southampton less pressured to sell for a lower figure. Hence why Spurs had to make an offer they couldnt turn down. Also Bale would have been less likely to be pushing for a move.
Young (Eng Intl) would have been on high wages and was probably looking for a move, hence why Boro could make a more sensible offer and we accepted that.
They signed Boumsong for nothing and sold him to Newcastle for £8M after just 18 games. I wonder if Magic & Bouumsong have the same agent (Willie Mckay)
Unfortunately yes. I'd rather he played his whole career with us but like Parker and Bowyer if he goes I hope we can get top money for him. What we get will depend on how good he is, how many teams want him, which teams want him and what the market is like.
I think Spurs have more cause the complaint. Diaware £5m now £20m, Defoe £8m now £14m (I haven't checked those figures but you know what I mean).