So your saying and let’s take Messi for arguments sake.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!
Stand back everyone. I'll explain.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 not be getting a grip of how boring you are being, it’s bordering on trolling.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.
The rags must need empty seats filling for next season.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.
The rags must need empty seats filling for next season.
Looks like we're getting sancho to the red mardarses headline every year now.
Was sneijder for a few years, then Ronaldo for a few more, now it's sancho for about the 3rd year running.
Piss funny.
So your saying and let’s take Messi for arguments sake.
Messi is a free agent this year, his market value is Zero? Because he’s contractually Free too sign for any club for Zero fee. But we are still going to pay say £200/250 million in other ways because that’s what he’s worth if he still had years left on his contract?
Plus we get someone the to ref the game at same time ;)
cant see Kane getting half the free kicks he gets for spurs playing for us
Lol.The market value of any player is the maximum cost that any club values that player at for the intended period of engagement.
So if Messi is on a free but his market value is say £300M for a 3 year contract then he’ll be employed on that basis.
If there was an upfront fee, payable to Barca, of say £100M attached then, provided Messi was willing to take only £200M for those 3 years, his total cost would be £300M (his market value) and that’s what he’d go for.
I think maybe you’ve confused asking price with market value.
Asking price is what the selling club would be willing to take for a player whereas market value is what a buying club is willing to pay.
Thus, some asking prices mean that some players are actually not for sale.
A players total cost is the combination of all costs - up front fees, players salary over the period of the contract, agents fees, tea & coffee, etc.
Provided the total of all costs meets a players market value then the player will be sold.
If the combined costs exceed market value then the player is, in effect, not for sale.
Oh, and years left in a players contract do not effect a players market value. What it does effect is the contract holding clubs ability to set a price that makes the player not for sale.
That control diminishes as the contract runs down until there is no control at all at the terminal date of the contract.
Think about it this way.
In simple terms.
I’m selling a skateboard. It is definitely for sale because I’m selling it for £250 and people are will to pay £250 for it - that is what the market values it at.
I make a profit (my take)
It costs me £100 to buy the board + a £50 import fee so I make £100 on the deal.
Imagine that skateboard is a player and I’m his agent.
My import fee suddenly reduces to £25. Do I reduce the £250 price to £225 when the price the market is willing to pay (the market value) is £250?
Not on your effin’ nelly I don’t - I’m not mad, I’m in the business of making money, just like all the footballers and all the agents and all the clubs are.
My skateboard will still cost £250 because that’s what the market is willing to pay. The import fees are reduced by £25 and my take from the £250 goes up by £25 so I now make £125 rather than £100.
Only a total nob would sell a skateboard at less that the market would pay for it - reducing one part of the cost does not change the market value it just alters the split between me and those collecting the import duty.
The buyer pays the same market value because me making more money does not effect market value.
Stand back everyone. I'll explain.
We get him cheaper next season.
You should have just said. ;-)
Lol.