Alternative Championship Table - Squad Market Value

[reddoh]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Was that the cheapie rip off copy of the Labybird series?

No Just the books I read in school (no idea who the publisher was) in fact as a young kid what  is a publisher? 

[Midred]

On 10/05/2022 at 19:09, Davefevs said:

Been a lot in the media recently re Luton’s £1.5m value squad versus the likes of Fulham, Bournemouth, etc. that was based on fees paid, notwithstanding some undisclosed stuff.

Here is Transfermarkt’s market value, which is open to scrutiny, but it also includes loan players too.

It still shows Luton seriously punching above their weight, but I was surprised by Millwall.

Dave, could you find a copy of the Premier league's club budgets please? I be interested to see the comparison between Norwich and Manchester City!

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Midred said:

Dave, could you find a copy of the Premier league's club budgets please? I be interested to see the comparison between Norwich and Manchester City!

I can:

[Midred]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I can:

Thanks Dave. I take that apart from the currency quoted the two tables are comparable.  There are some seriously underperforming clubs in the premier league! 

[IAmNick]

I guess with these things the current values they have might be off, but an accurate market value table probably isn't a fair picture either.

Just because we want £20m for Scott (for example) doesn't mean he represented £20m of value on the pitch for us this year. Likewise a squad with older players, who may well be better than a raw youngster, will have a lower market value - but that's not a measure of their quality on the pitch. There are too many other things factored in.

It'd be interesting to see one weighted somehow taking into account the player values at the start of the season as well. That might help reduce the ones like Scott who 10x their value, and the older ones who might halve (or more) theirs.

[Leveller]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

I guess with these things the current values they have might be off, but an accurate market value table probably isn't a fair picture either.

Just because we want £20m for Scott (for example) doesn't mean he represented £20m of value on the pitch for us this year. Likewise a squad with older players, who may well be better than a raw youngster, will have a lower market value - but that's not a measure of their quality on the pitch. There are too many other things factored in.

It'd be interesting to see one weighted somehow taking into account the player values at the start of the season as well. That might help reduce the ones like Scott who 10x their value, and the older ones who might halve (or more) theirs.

Nobody seems to know exactly how the squad values are arrived at - but the £30M shown for us is less than many on OTIB seem to think we should get for Scott and Semenyo  alone!

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Nobody seems to know exactly how the squad values are arrived at - but the £30M shown for us is less than many on OTIB seem to think we should get for Scott and Semenyo  alone!

I read an interview recently with the guy that started the website, and it’s algorithm based (fee / contract length / remaining on contract type stuff), but also flexible to allow their “members” to adjust them.  In the modern day of undisclosed fees it’s harder to get right.

Its never gonna be something to get too fixated with, but at least it values loan players and academy players.  For example our own club accounts only report players signed for fees in the intangible assets figures.