Jump to content
IGNORED

Why are transfer fees rising so quickly?


reddogkev

Recommended Posts

I don't understand why transfer fees for players at the top levels are now often over tens of millions of pounds; why so expensive and why are they rising so quickly?

Does anyone else find it baffling that transfer fees for payers in the top tiers are now always in excess of millions and millions?

It moves the game further away from reality into insane fantasy money.  Does the money spent on players even exist at any tangible level?  I'm still scratching my head that this week we've managed to buy a player for £8million - it just doesn't seem real.

How soon will be the day come when even at our level it is common to be spending over £10million per player?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm excited for the day the bubble bursts, we'll lose money as well as everyone else but at least we have plans in motion to be fully self sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised to see 10+ teams go to the wall when this happens 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

I don't understand why transfer fees for players at the top levels are now often over tens of millions of pounds; why so expensive and why are they rising so quickly?

Does anyone else find it baffling that transfer fees for payers in the top tiers are now always in excess of millions and millions?

It moves the game further away from reality into insane fantasy money.  Does the money spent on players even exist at any tangible level?  I'm still scratching my head that this week we've managed to buy a player for £8million - it just doesn't seem real.

How soon will be the day come when even at our level it is common to be spending over £10million per player?

 

There is more money in the game than ever before so it stands to reason that transfer fees will increase with that. 

Man United will spend a lower percentage of their revenue on Harry Maguire at £80m then they did when they bought Ferdinand for £30m

I don’t have a problem with it at all. Makes no difference to me as it’s all relative. We signed Kalas for £8m which might seem high but if it is then so is £13m for Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RedSkin said:

Me too.   Palace want £80m for Zaha who didn't cut it at Man Utd not so long ago.

Man Utd have to pay £50m for Aaron Wan-Bissaka, England U21 right back.  And we pay £2m for England U21 left back. Bargain!

 

We somehow managed to get JDS at 2009/10 transfer rates, Mark Ashton must have used a time machine to negotiate that deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

I don't understand why transfer fees for players at the top levels are now often over tens of millions of pounds; why so expensive and why are they rising so quickly?

Does anyone else find it baffling that transfer fees for payers in the top tiers are now always in excess of millions and millions?

It moves the game further away from reality into insane fantasy money.  Does the money spent on players even exist at any tangible level?  I'm still scratching my head that this week we've managed to buy a player for £8million - it just doesn't seem real.

How soon will be the day come when even at our level it is common to be spending over £10million per player?

 

There’s more money sloshing about because Sky and other Tv networks around the world are paying more and more money into football, and the Premier League, from a business point of view, are doing an amazing job.  The shame is that all the extra money is not going to help bring ticket prices down, improve facilities at grass roots, etc etc, and is instead going on ludicrous transfer fees and wages.  The thing is that it’s not really real, clubs are just swapping cash with each other generally, until you get relegated from the prem, that’s when the trouble starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for English football and the top clubs around the world specifically.

TV deals mean no-one in the Premier League needs to sell. Billionaire owners don't need to sell.

We never need to sell anyone. We choose to sell when players contracts run down, or when we think it's a great deal.

The only people who need to sell are the clubs whose parachute payments run out or are mismanaged or don't have wealthy backing.

There's a reason we keep signing players with one year left on their contract at their former clubs. That forces a value proposition for their club. There's a reason we signed Semenyo to a 5 (4+1) deal. So we don't get burnt. I'm surprised his agent allowed that deal (unless there's an escape clause in there if a top team/value comes in for him)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prinny said:

Well for English football and the top clubs around the world specifically.

TV deals mean no-one in the Premier League needs to sell. Billionaire owners don't need to sell.

We never need to sell anyone. We choose to sell when players contracts run down, or when we think it's a great deal.

The only people who need to sell are the clubs whose parachute payments run out or are mismanaged or don't have wealthy backing.

There's a reason we keep signing players with one year left on their contract at their former clubs. That forces a value proposition for their club. There's a reason we signed Semenyo to a 5 (4+1) deal. So we don't get burnt. I'm surprised his agent allowed that deal (unless there's an escape clause in there if a top team/value comes in for him)

I like how we don’t stand in the way of players furthering themselves. I think it’s a great selling point when trying to sign young players and tie players like Semenyo down.  Yes there might be clauses but there is also strong evidence that we can give to show we will let players progress faster than the club can should the situation arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Well for English football and the top clubs around the world specifically.

TV deals mean no-one in the Premier League needs to sell. Billionaire owners don't need to sell.

We never need to sell anyone. We choose to sell when players contracts run down, or when we think it's a great deal.

The only people who need to sell are the clubs whose parachute payments run out or are mismanaged or don't have wealthy backing.

There's a reason we keep signing players with one year left on their contract at their former clubs. That forces a value proposition for their club. There's a reason we signed Semenyo to a 5 (4+1) deal. So we don't get burnt. I'm surprised his agent allowed that deal (unless there's an escape clause in there if a top team/value comes in for him)

Will be interesting to see if UEFA limits and PL loss limits continue to diverge and how this will affect it- think UEFA allowable loss is about £40.3m in 3 seasons plus allowable costs, whereas PL is £35m per season if this will have an effect. This (the UEFA limit) is mooted to fall to around £26.9m over 3 years!

I very much doubt that UEFA licences would let the latter take precedence for UEFA competitions- why would they after all? They're also possibly- well so they say- looking at shutting off loopholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all started when state-sponsorship became a thing. Billionaires can throw millions at a football club, but when a state actor can backroll a football club from funds that rake in a billion a day (i.e. Man City, PSG, Chelsea, Sheffield United, Barcelona (arguably)) with the explicit goal of promoting your state globally, you're playing a financial game that no one can win.

It's why it astounds me when our fans get their knickers in a twist over a £2-3m signing. For the level we want to compete at, that is peanuts, and if you're so concerned about our bottom-line then it's a ******* HUGE sign that the club perhaps isn't ready for Premier League football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I like how we don’t stand in the way of players furthering themselves. I think it’s a great selling point when trying to sign young players and tie players like Semenyo down.  Yes there might be clauses but there is also strong evidence that we can give to show we will let players progress faster than the club can should the situation arise.

I mean that's a narrative to be used to our advantage but is it really true?... In my opinion we sold Reid because he had one year left on his deal. We sold Kelly because he wasn't in our team and the value was fantastic for a player who couldn't get in the team. Joe Bryan we got a great deal for, he was progress stopping Lloyd Kelly and we've upgraded to Jay Da Silva.

There's no indication of either progress stopping or progress helping. We have good recruitment and coaching now so big teams are looking at our players and they're paying what WE want as prices or they're taking advantage of our players on contracts running out. Are we helping Callum O'Dowda's progress or are we waiting on the right offer for a ticking contract?

Cristiano Ronaldo was for sale, Neymar was for sale. No club will stop a "players progress" if the price is right. Our biggest selling point is that we give players a chance to develop and be seen. We play young players. Our players get better. And our position in the football pyramid is a great stepping stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madness

When the income Lloyd Kelly’s sale is equivalent or close to our total ticket sale income for the whole season ....

crazy

It appears ticket prices are becoming less relevant (still important to FFP income total unfortunately)  trading players wisely is a more important factor than ever 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I mean that's a narrative to be used to our advantage but is it really true?... In my opinion we sold Reid because he had one year left on his deal. We sold Kelly because he wasn't in our team and the value was fantastic for a player who couldn't get in the team. Joe Bryan we got a great deal for, he was progress stopping Lloyd Kelly and we've upgraded to Jay Da Silva.

There's no indication of either progress stopping or progress helping. We have good recruitment and coaching now so big teams are looking at our players and they're paying what WE want as prices or they're taking advantage of our players on contracts running out. Are we helping Callum O'Dowda's progress or are we waiting on the right offer for a ticking contract?

Cristiano Ronaldo was for sale, Neymar was for sale. No club will stop a "players progress" if the price is right. Our biggest selling point is that we give players a chance to develop and be seen. We play young players. Our players get better. And our position in the football pyramid is a great stepping stone.

Yes and no IMO.

Neymar went as his release/buyout clause was met. Every player in Spain has to have a buyout clause- unsure Barcelona wanted him out but once met it became out of their control. Ronaldo ultimately went big time at Man Utd but again not an academy product there- was another club he came through, very good academy indeed- but yes he had his price, at Sporting Lisbon, Man Utd and indeed Real Madrid- think the latter agreed a lower one down, if they'd wanted to have kept him they could have insisted on the buyout clause and not a penny less- pricing him out basically to all but literally a couple of clubs. It was 1bn euros- then it was 400m and latterly 120m- but if they had wanted to 100% above anything keep him they could surely have insisted on one of the first 2?

We do seem to be selling to progress, pure profit given it is youth products.  Hopefully over time we can look to do a mix of selling to progress and keeping some other of our clearly talented youth as the club grows. O'Dowda is an interesting one- interest in him, at least public and concrete appears to have dried up- someone posted on here a few days ago he looked happy in training, might he want a return to the fold? If happy and especially if he signed a new deal I'd be quite happy to keep him a bit longer. OTOH could be a good opportunity for a profit, some of which can be reinvested if sold this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I mean that's a narrative to be used to our advantage but is it really true?... In my opinion we sold Reid because he had one year left on his deal. We sold Kelly because he wasn't in our team and the value was fantastic for a player who couldn't get in the team. Joe Bryan we got a great deal for, he was progress stopping Lloyd Kelly and we've upgraded to Jay Da Silva.

There's no indication of either progress stopping or progress helping. We have good recruitment and coaching now so big teams are looking at our players and they're paying what WE want as prices or they're taking advantage of our players on contracts running out. Are we helping Callum O'Dowda's progress or are we waiting on the right offer for a ticking contract?

Cristiano Ronaldo was for sale, Neymar was for sale. No club will stop a "players progress" if the price is right. Our biggest selling point is that we give players a chance to develop and be seen. We play young players. Our players get better. And our position in the football pyramid is a great stepping stone.

Neymar had a release clause, as every player in Spain does, Ronaldo asked to leave. I’d argue that neither were made available by their club. Messi also has a release clause, you can bet he’s not available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I mean that's a narrative to be used to our advantage but is it really true?... In my opinion we sold Reid because he had one year left on his deal. We sold Kelly because he wasn't in our team and the value was fantastic for a player who couldn't get in the team. Joe Bryan we got a great deal for, he was progress stopping Lloyd Kelly and we've upgraded to Jay Da Silva.

There's no indication of either progress stopping or progress helping. We have good recruitment and coaching now so big teams are looking at our players and they're paying what WE want as prices or they're taking advantage of our players on contracts running out. Are we helping Callum O'Dowda's progress or are we waiting on the right offer for a ticking contract?

Cristiano Ronaldo was for sale, Neymar was for sale. No club will stop a "players progress" if the price is right. Our biggest selling point is that we give players a chance to develop and be seen. We play young players. Our players get better. And our position in the football pyramid is a great stepping stone.

Neymar had a release clause, as every player in Spain does, Ronaldo asked to leave. I’d argue that neither were made available by their club. Messi also has a release clause, you can bet he’s not available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really interesting, thought-provoking comments so far, cheers for replies.

I wonder whether clubs are being sensible spending such vast sums of money, like ourselves for example, just because the money is there due to the Kelly sale, should we really spend £8million on a player who didn't guarantee us a top six place last season? 

The money being spent on players has really gotten out of control far too quickly.  Trouble is, it inflates the value for all players, and forces clubs to spend more than they can actually sustain.

Surprised the governments haven't set up a regulative body to investigate and monitor the movement of such massive wealth within the game - unless they have and I'm just not familiar with their operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reddogkev said:

I don't understand why transfer fees for players at the top levels are now often over tens of millions of pounds; why so expensive and why are they rising so quickly?

Does anyone else find it baffling that transfer fees for payers in the top tiers are now always in excess of millions and millions?

It moves the game further away from reality into insane fantasy money.  Does the money spent on players even exist at any tangible level?  I'm still scratching my head that this week we've managed to buy a player for £8million - it just doesn't seem real.

How soon will be the day come when even at our level it is common to be spending over £10million per player?

 

Record tv deal in the prem, this is the knock on effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside but related to money in the game..... browsing some social media it struck me just what a monstrous effect it can have to lives

Lloyd Kelly , as we are aware had a tough childhood in many ways , and 12-18 months ago was an aspiring professional footballer 

Suddenly BANG

Lloyd is flying with his girlfriend business class to Dubai , staying in luxury and using the concierge services available to the rich and famous for some vey nice experiences 

Particularly in Lloyd’s case I do think , fair play , good luck to him ,  a very decent lad , but wow - what a rapid change in life / lifestyle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how it can badly affect a team as well, Arsenal being out of the champions league has seriously hampered them financially and for a club who were ran so well things now don't look so great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

Really interesting, thought-provoking comments so far, cheers for replies.

I wonder whether clubs are being sensible spending such vast sums of money, like ourselves for example, just because the money is there due to the Kelly sale, should we really spend £8million on a player who didn't guarantee us a top six place last season?

I don't think that was down to Kalas or the defence.  The issue for me was not taking chances at the other end.

The money in football is obscene.  As someone said above, at least we are building infrastructure and an identity that will make things sustainable if it all goes belly up.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yes and no IMO.

Neymar went as his release/buyout clause was met. Every player in Spain has to have a buyout clause- unsure Barcelona wanted him out but once met it became out of their control. Ronaldo ultimately went big time at Man Utd but again not an academy product there- was another club he came through, very good academy indeed- but yes he had his price, at Sporting Lisbon, Man Utd and indeed Real Madrid- think the latter agreed a lower one down, if they'd wanted to have kept him they could have insisted on the buyout clause and not a penny less- pricing him out basically to all but literally a couple of clubs. It was 1bn euros- then it was 400m and latterly 120m- but if they had wanted to 100% above anything keep him they could surely have insisted on one of the first 2?

We do seem to be selling to progress, pure profit given it is youth products.  Hopefully over time we can look to do a mix of selling to progress and keeping some other of our clearly talented youth as the club grows. O'Dowda is an interesting one- interest in him, at least public and concrete appears to have dried up- someone posted on here a few days ago he looked happy in training, might he want a return to the fold? If happy and especially if he signed a new deal I'd be quite happy to keep him a bit longer.

Every player doesn't have to have a buy out clause in Spain. They have the right to buy out their own contract. They just do because if it isn't agreed they can go to court and try to get their contract bought out and that amount could vary because of courts so it's best to agree it before hand so it's always done as it's best for both parties. Just a technical correction on that one.

Interest dried up because no-one was willing to pay what we wanted. I.E. we stopped his "progress". But if Leeds had offered us £20 million (just being ridiculous here for the point) we'd had definitely let him "progress his career."

Man Utd are owned by the Glazers, they don't care about anything other than profit. They as we've all seen have sacrificed Man Utds place at the top table because of their desire to make money when other Billionaires are spending to win.

1 minute ago, James54De said:

Neymar had a release clause, as every player in Spain does, Ronaldo asked to leave. I’d argue that neither were made available by their club. Messi also has a release clause, you can bet he’s not available. 

I'm sorry but the buyout clause in the Spanish contracts is making them available at a price. That's exactly what it is. It's negotiable in the amount that it's set at. "We didn't stand in the way of his dream, we respect our great player" etc. Sounds better for everyone than, "We got the best offer we could for a player who didn't want to be here."

A players buyout clause is equivalent to them running down a contract. They could renegotiate, and up the clause if they want to with a new contract. Both cases are them refusing to sign a contract to force a move. If you notice Neymar's release fee was a lot lower comparatively than others at the time as it is currently. That negotiation is a way to force a move. It's not the club being kind. It's Neymar's agent team using power to force a comparatively low release clause so his client can move and they can all make more money.

It's PR. IMO. Money talks, ignore what the people involved say most of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prinny said:

Every player doesn't have to have a buy out clause in Spain. They have the right to buy out their own contract. They just do because if it isn't agreed they can go to court and try to get their contract bought out and that amount could vary because of courts so it's best to agree it before hand so it's always done as it's best for both parties. Just a technical correction on that one.

 Interest dried up because no-one was willing to pay what we wanted. I.E. we stopped his "progress". But if Leeds had offered us £20 million (just being ridiculous here for the point) we'd had definitely let him "progress his career."

Man Utd are owned by the Glazers, they don't care about anything other than profit. They as we've all seen have sacrificed Man Utds place at the top table because of their desire to make money when other Billionaires are spending to win.

I'm sorry but the buyout clause in the Spanish contracts is making them available at a price. That's exactly what it is. It's negotiable in the amount that it's set at. "We didn't stand in the way of his dream, we respect our great player" etc. Sounds better for everyone than, "We got the best offer we could for a player who didn't want to be here."

A players buyout clause is equivalent to them running down a contract. They could renegotiate, and up the clause if they want to with a new contract. Both cases are them refusing to sign a contract to force a move. If you notice Neymar's release fee was a lot lower comparatively than others at the time as it is currently. That negotiation is a way to force a move. It's not the club being kind. It's Neymar's agent team using power to force a comparatively low release clause so his client can move and they can all make more money.

It's PR. IMO. Money talks, ignore what the people involved say most of the time. 

IF UEFA start enforcing FFP to the letter and without fear or favour-, this might change. Banning/a voluntary agreement to exclude AC Milan a good start- imagine the cutbacks of some of the billionaire clubs or big spenders if only allowed to lose 30-45m plus allowables per 3 year period!

Thanks for that on buyout clause, should make some interesting reading- if Ronaldo hadn't had his release clause reduced then, could he have forced it down in a court- perhaps with a moderate compensation fee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two real reasons.

1) TV Money continues to flood in at higher rates almost every year now particularly given that they're licensing the rights globally

2) Clubs are thinking differently about finances given FFP.  The transfer fee is less of an issue on its own, they think about the effect on P&L annually over the length of the contract - because that's where the constraint applies.  Aaron Wan-Bisaka at £50m with say £7m a year in wages/bonuses over 5 years is about £17m cost annually.  Signing Sanchez on £500k a week is £25m a year.  The fee isn't the focus it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

IF UEFA start enforcing FFP to the letter and without fear or favour-, this might change. Banning/a voluntary agreement to exclude AC Milan a good start- imagine the cutbacks of some of the billionaire clubs or big spenders if only allowed to lose 30-45m plus allowables per 3 year period!

Thanks for that on buyout clause, should make some interesting reading- if Ronaldo hadn't had his release clause reduced then, could he have forced it down in a court- perhaps with a moderate compensation fee?

He had an agreed amount. I don't think (couldn't find anything on google) there's a precedent for someone legally challenging the amount of a buy out clause that they agreed in their contract so I can't tell you the result of that. I imagine if they agree it then there's no room for a legal challenge. The problem if it did happen would be it takes time to go through the court process which doesn't benefit the player, and I'm guessing because it's a court setting (judges vary) the amount could vary. That's why it's agreed beforehand to avoid all of that. Ronaldo's interesting because it was Real lowering his buy out for PR reasons/to facilitate a deal, not the player trying to force his way out. They wanted someone to pay the buy out (oh no! what could we do???!!!) so not to look bad in their fans eyes. The buyout wasn't reduced for Barcelona or PSG...

It's all a PR game that can be seen in Mark Little's cold dead eyes. He's a TRUE BLUE forever! He's certainly not moving down here because he likes the area and wants to be closer to his business. He's a TRUE BLUE forever!

Large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RedSkin said:

Me too.   Palace want £80m for Zaha who didn't cut it at Man Utd not so long ago.

Man Utd have to pay £50m for Aaron Wan-Bissaka, England U21 right back.  And we pay £2m for England U21 left back. Bargain!

 

A lot of people are missing the point about Zaha when Palace value him at £80m. Firstly, this isn't the price they'd expect to achieve and it will obviously fall during negotiations. Secondly, the value of Zaha to Palace in reality is the value of the Premier League money as, without him, they may very well struggle to stay up. If a bidding war does not commence, then it is likely that his price will fall. 

AWB had a fantastic season last year but it is an eye-watering sum for a player who hasn't played for England yet. United are a different beast financially and can afford such gambles sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all proportionate. I'm a bit drunk, so I'm probably going to mangle these "facts" but...

I think Gordon Strachan was the most expensive signing for Manchester United in real terms. As mentioned above by @RedDave the balance of fee to revenue is important in these things. Strachan's fee in relation to overall club revenue at the time was ridiculous.

I also remember reading something - possibly The Secret Footballer - which recounted the storyteller having lunch with Manchester City's Director of Football. Man City were signing Robinho at the time for silly money and a silly salary. The Secret Footballer told the D.O.F that it was unsustainable to pay someone 160,000 pounds per week, but the D.O.F pointed out that the new owners made millions every day from oil... and they weren't just in the oil business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of housing is obscene too. Anyone who voted in the last few governments is complicit. 

... just a reminder before you all lay in to the people who run football for the price of the game and transfer fees. 

Responsibility is rarely the fault of the few. You choose who you vote for. You choose whether to pay for Sky etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...