It's Quiet Thread 15 - Txiki Blinders

[Thaksinssoldier]

Side issue but I've been saying for a few weeks (to Spurs fans: I know a few) that Potter would be a good choice for them. He annoyed me when Brighton had the temerity to beat us but I think he has the potential to do well at a "big" club.

I don't pay huge amounts of attention to other clubs but it seems like Spurs are in a tough spot at the moment and Levy may not have that much leverage when it comes to Kane (aside from keeping him to his contract against his will).

Potter is without doubt going to be a fantastic manager for someone.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

He will be cheaper once his release clause comes into play! All else and your previous discussion elsewhere aside, that is ultimately the point i'm responding to. If Dortmund are asking for 150m this year, the maximum they can ask next year id 65m. He is then half the price next season. Nobody pockets the extra 85, nobody would pay it if they wanted to.

His agent and he himself will look for wages. And whatever incentives. Both years. Potentially more next summer if they feel they can and clubs can stretch to it having got him for less, but nowhere near the difference between the asking price this year and release clause next. That is the whole point of the release clause.

edit, I see from your next post you are actually talking about the difference being that same window, i.e between the release clause and what someone else would pay that same window. Which makes more sense. But, nobody would look to pay any more than the release clause, because they wouldnt need to. Then it is just a case of his entouragenseeing where they get a better deal dor themselves, but that is part of the process and ultimately on them to decide to go for more money or where they actually want to.

Blimey Coatigan, you’re a great guy and you should please reread your words and reconsider because you’ve strayed over the rainbow there mate (as we all do occasionally).

You think that nobody would pay more than the up front fee / release clause?

You honestly think that?

Well the fact is that every club that engages a player pays more than the up front fee, as example; every club pays the players salary, agents fees taxes etc.
The buying clubs don’t even discriminate between up front fee, salary and so forth because they annualised the total cost (or as better described amortise it) on a per season basis across the length of the contract.

If a buying club values a player at say £180M for a 6 year contract, then that’s an annual cost of £30M. Whether that cost is made up of 99% up front fee and 1% for the rest or as 1% up front fee and 99% for the rest does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

And no, the make up of the total cost does not alter the buying clubs valuation or indeed the market value of the player which is, of course, the total price the buying club is willing to pay.


So, bear in mind that the fee a club pays for a player is just one element of a total amount including many other costs, and that a players market value is the maximum amount that any club will invest in a player (fee, agents fee, salary over the term of the contract etc.).

If a player has a market value of say £75M and a contract clause says that the contract holding club must accept £50M, it doesn’t reduce the market value of the player as the buying club may only be required to pay £50M to the selling club but they’ll pay the £25M difference between the £50M fee and the £75M market value in other ways, as enhanced signing bonus, larger agents fee, bigger salary etc.

And if you think an agent like Raiola, or any half respectable football agent, would allow himself and his client to wave goodbye to any portion of his clients market value then there’s no point in you reading any further because the facts below will just annoy you and take some fun out of your afternoon.

Think about it.

For anyone still reading; A football player put on the market, is always sold for the maximum amount that the market will bear, which is in effect the market value / the maximum that anyone is willing to pay.

That can be a combination of a huge up front fee + agent fees + signing on bonus + salary etc.

If the up front fee reduces then that does not alter the market value of the player - not one single tiny iota.
A reduction in the up front free merely alters the distribution of the market value so that less may be paid in fee but more is paid in signing on bonus, agents fees, salary etc.

Anyone reading this can choose to either believe my words or entertain the fantasy that a reduced up front fee reduces the market value of a player or indeed of an asset of any kind.
It honestly doesn’t, it just alters how that market value is expressed in payment terms (as fee, as agents fee, as signing on bonus, as salary and so on).

On the presumption that you stuck with it and are still reading. I have big respect for you Mr Coatigan and, indeed, I have big love for almost everybody on this forum, but I’m stunned that so many grown-ups can labour so badly under the misapprehension that reducing the up front fee demanded for a player in any way alters that player‘s market value (the maximum amount that a buying club is willing to fork up as a total cost across the length of the contract term).

PS. If anyone wants examples of things that do alter a players market value then:-
1. A financial crisis that sucks billions out of the sport, a player breaking a leg or being sentenced to prison for a heinous crime are all examples of things that lower a players value.
2. The sport suddenly being awash with additional funding, better TV payments, increased prize monies, a player having a phenomenal breakout season scoring and assisting far more than expected or winning the ballon d’ore are examples of things that increase a players value.

PPS. To put to bed another misconception. A player having 3 or 2 or 1 or even 0 years left on a contract does not affect a players value. It affects the level of control that the contract holding club has but it does not affect market value because the market value is what the player is worth to another club.
Thus if a player has 3 years left on a contract and the players market value is say £50M and the club holding the contract will only accept £75M then, as the players market value is less than the asking price, the player will not be sold because the market values the player at less than the selling price.
Also, if the same player (say £50M market value) is entirely out of contract then said player will still cost £50M but it will be paid in ways other than a purchase fee.

PPS. Can someone else with a basic grasp of how markets work please step into this discussion because I’ve said the same thing in about 10 different ways in about 10 different posts but it’s not getting through the tin foil in some cases and I’ve already done more than I have energy for so I’m giving up for now.

PPPS. Saturday being a drinking day, I’ll toddle off and pull open a nice cold tinny now, and I hope the marathon readers who got to the end of my poorly described explanation of the bleeding’ obvious can reward themselves similarly and have a lovely afternoon.
And that includes you Mr C.
Cheers y’all!

 

[johnnytapia]

60 quid for a ticket in London is the norm, any fan with half a brain cell would not fall for the season ticket sell bullshit.

Peter Swales could have written a book on that subject, every summer we were going to sign the likes of Dean Saunders and co always ended up with some second rate crap.

Peter wrote many books: cheque books.

 

[lightning Rodri]

Graham Potter's Brighton are one of the best sides in the country until they get to the box. The amount of times they get good shooting opportunities is incredible, and yet they're so bad because they just have no finishers. The defence is really good, they concede very few chances. The midfield is really solid, high pressing, really stopped us getting going.

With Kane and Son, his Brighton side would be finishing around 4th/5th like West Ham, but I the problem is if they get rid of Kane...he's going to have the exact same problem he has at Brighton... no striker.

Even with Delap they would be easily mid table I guess. Brighton with Potter I mean

 

[samuelyeboah]

unrelated, but sancho to the rags is a serious signing, and I hope we use the 20 odd million that we get from it to help in nabbing a big name like haaland/kane.

 

[Coatigan]

Blimey Coatigan, you’re a great guy and you should please reread your words and reconsider because you’ve strayed over the rainbow there mate (as we all do occasionally).

You think that nobody would pay more than the up front fee / release clause?

You honestly think that?

Well the fact is that every club that engages a player pays more than the up front fee, as example; every club pays the players salary, agents fees taxes etc.
The buying clubs don’t even discriminate between up front fee, salary and so forth because they annualised the total cost (or as better described amortise it) on a per season basis across the length of the contract.

If a buying club values a player at say £180M for a 6 year contract, then that’s an annual cost of £30M. Whether that cost is made up of 99% up front fee and 1% for the rest or as 1% up front fee and 99% for the rest does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

And no, the make up of the total cost does not alter the buying clubs valuation or indeed the market value of the player which is, of course, the total price the buying club is willing to pay.


So, bear in mind that the fee a club pays for a player is just one element of a total amount including many other costs, and that a players market value is the maximum amount that any club will invest in a player (fee, agents fee, salary over the term of the contract etc.).

If a player has a market value of say £75M and a contract clause says that the contract holding club must accept £50M, it doesn’t reduce the market value of the player as the buying club may only be required to pay £50M to the selling club but they’ll pay the £25M difference between the £50M fee and the £75M market value in other ways, as enhanced signing bonus, larger agents fee, bigger salary etc.

And if you think an agent like Raiola, or any half respectable football agent, would allow himself and his client to wave goodbye to any portion of his clients market value then there’s no point in you reading any further because the facts below will just annoy you and take some fun out of your afternoon.

Think about it.

For anyone still reading; A football player put on the market, is always sold for the maximum amount that the market will bear, which is in effect the market value / the maximum that anyone is willing to pay.

That can be a combination of a huge up front fee + agent fees + signing on bonus + salary etc.

If the up front fee reduces then that does not alter the market value of the player - not one single tiny iota.
A reduction in the up front free merely alters the distribution of the market value so that less may be paid in fee but more is paid in signing on bonus, agents fees, salary etc.

Anyone reading this can choose to either believe my words or entertain the fantasy that a reduced up front fee reduces the market value of a player or indeed of an asset of any kind.
It honestly doesn’t, it just alters how that market value is expressed in payment terms (as fee, as agents fee, as signing on bonus, as salary and so on).

On the presumption that you stuck with it and are still reading. I have big respect for you Mr Coatigan and, indeed, I have big love for almost everybody on this forum, but I’m stunned that so many grown-ups can labour so badly under the misapprehension that reducing the up front fee demanded for a player in any way alters that player‘s market value (the maximum amount that a buying club is willing to fork up as a total cost across the length of the contract term).

PS. If anyone wants examples of things that do alter a players market value then:-
1. A financial crisis that sucks billions out of the sport, a player breaking a leg or being sentenced to prison for a heinous crime are all examples of things that lower a players value.
2. The sport suddenly being awash with additional funding, better TV payments, increased prize monies, a player having a phenomenal breakout season scoring and assisting far more than expected or winning the ballon d’ore are examples of things that increase a players value.

PPS. To put to bed another misconception. A player having 3 or 2 or 1 or even 0 years left on a contract does not affect a players value. It affects the level of control that the contract holding club has but it does not affect market value because the market value is what the player is worth to another club.
Thus if a player has 3 years left on a contract and the players market value is say £50M and the club holding the contract will only accept £75M then, as the players market value is less than the asking price, the player will not be sold because the market values the player at less than the selling price.
Also, if the same player (say £50M market value) is entirely out of contract then said player will still cost £50M but it will be paid in ways other than a purchase fee.

PPS. Can someone else with a basic grasp of how markets work please step into this discussion because I’ve said the same thing in about 10 different ways in about 10 different posts but it’s not getting through the tin foil in some cases and I’ve already done more than I have energy for so I’m giving up for now.

PPPS. Saturday being a drinking day, I’ll toddle off and pull open a nice cold tinny now, and I hope the marathon readers who got to the end of my poorly described explanation of the bleeding’ obvious can reward themselves similarly and have a lovely afternoon.
And that includes you Mr C.
Cheers y’all!

You seem to have either massively misunderstood what I am saying.

I know fine well the fee for the player isnt all there is to it.

The fee reducing drastically means the cost reduces too. The other costs exist, and are completely separate.

This year, Haaland's market values both of two things. What the buying club is prepared to pay, and what the selling club is willing to accept. Say the much argued 150m.

Next year, his market value is his release clause. It is that simple, because that is what Dortmund Have to accept. No club is going to pay 150m for him, to Dortmund, when they don't have to.


All other costs don't matter, for that arguement. They exist, now and next season. They might increase slightly, but they won't increase so much replace the difference between the release clause.

So yes, next year, he will be cheaper. Much cheaper. Even with the agent and him asking for more for themselves, purely because the release clause exists.

 

[Centurions]

unrelated, but sancho to the rags is a serious signing, and I hope we use the 20 odd million that we get from it to help in nabbing a big name like haaland/kane.

20 odd million? Half that, if the figures being bandied about are anywhere near (maybe £12million).

 

[OB1]

Wow I’m totally divided over this - as a city fan I would be so angry and upset by that move, on the other hand I would be so angry and upset by that move.

I don’t see a positive in that at all

He will leave us one day and he has said that he would like to manage a national team so I'd rather he managed England but obviously I hope he stays at City beyond his current contract.

 

[OB1]

Graham Potter's Brighton are one of the best sides in the country until they get to the box. The amount of times they get good shooting opportunities is incredible, and yet they're so bad because they just have no finishers. The defence is really good, they concede very few chances. The midfield is really solid, high pressing, really stopped us getting going.

With Kane and Son, his Brighton side would be finishing around 4th/5th like West Ham, but I the problem is if they get rid of Kane...he's going to have the exact same problem he has at Brighton... no striker.

Except that Spurs will buy be able to buy better strikers than Brighton; in fact, Kane aside, they already have them.

Spurs would be a rebuilding job and whoever takes it will need to be given time.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

You seem to have either massively misunderstood what I am saying.

I know fine well the fee for the player isnt all there is to it.

The fee reducing drastically means the cost reduces too. The other costs exist, and are completely separate.

This year, Haaland's market values both of two things. What the buying club is prepared to pay, and what the selling club is willing to accept. Say the much argued 150m.

Next year, his market value is his release clause. It is that simple, because that is what Dortmund Have to accept. No club is going to pay 150m for him, to Dortmund, when they don't have to.


All other costs don't matter, for that arguement. They exist, now and next season. They might increase slightly, but they won't increase so much replace the difference between the release clause.

So yes, next year, he will be cheaper. Much cheaper. Even with the agent and him asking for more for themselves, purely because the release clause exists.

You don’t understand what market value is. So I’ll try again.

Market value is the total outlay that a buying club is will to pay to engage a players services for a set period.
So a club may be willing to, as example, pay a total cost of £300M for a player over a 6 year period.

That’s €50M per annum over 6 years does not matter how that total sum is made up.
The club that is willing to invest the most in that player have valued said player at €50M per annum.

Hold that in your thoughts.

Now if the selling club ask for say £150M and all the other associated costs for the 6 year period (agents fees, taxes, player salary etc.) equal €150M then the total = €300M which aligns with the buying clubs valuation and the player gets bought.

If the selling club asks for more or if the player asks for more or indeed if anything takes the cost of the player above the buying clubs €300M over 6 years / €50M per annum valuation then the player does not get bought because the total cost is greater than the market would bear.

If the player can walk on a fucking free it still does not alter the market value of the player and, while there may be no up front fee to a selling club, the player has a market value of €300M over 6 years and that’s what you pay for the player in one way or another.

There is no magic spell that reduces a players market value, what the selling club or does not ask for does not alter the players market value.
The market value is the maximum amount that a club is willing to invest in a players services for a set period of time and the up front fee has not the slightest bearing on that valuation.

The up front fee and or the players wage demands may take the cost of said player above market value, so that the player is not sold, but it does not effect the market value and market value is what you pay.

A release clause has no affect whatsoever in market value, it may lower the take that one party gets, thus bringing the total cost of the player down to meet market value but it does not reduce the market value, it just makes the player sellable.

Looking at Haaland specifically; Dortmund’s asking price combined with Haaland’s salary demands & Raiola & Haaland’s dad’s brown envelopes may currently exceed market value which means, effectively that Haaland is not for sale.
Reducing the up front fee will reduce Dortmund's take from a sale and may even take the cost of employing Haaland down to a level where he is for sale because his total cost over the length of the supposed contract is within a clubs valuation but it does not alter that valuation.

I repeat; If Haaland has a market value of €300M for a 6 year contract then it doesn’t matter what the up front fee is.
What matters is if the total cost to employ him exceeds market value (in which case he is, in effect, not for sale) or if the total cost to employ him meets market value (in which case he gets sold for market value - obviously).
If Haaland has a market value of €300M for a 6 year contract then that is what will be paid for him over a 6 year period.

No meaningless unsubstantiated “yes but’s” please.
Just point out where you think I’m wrong and I’ll try again, or agree to differ and I’ll be happy with that.
What I won’t do is entertain the twisted logic that says that a player with an agent like Raiola can be had for less than market value, because that’s just plain silly.

If he walks on a free tomorrow and the market values his services at €300M in total over 6 years, then that is what he’ll cost to employ for those 6 years .

Oh, and the costs other than the upfront fee are not separate - they are part of the total cost over 6 years that is the players market value.
If the fee goes down the other costs go up to meet the market value.
There are no free gifts in this life - no agent will wave goodbye to €millions, any agent worth his salt will ensure that his client gets every damn penny that is due to him as his take from his market value.
If the selling club’s take reduces then the other costs go up to align with said market value.
Obviously.