Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Benzino said:
Historically in PL transfers, the highest transfer fees on average, sit at around 10% of the total league transfer income for the year. This rule has remained quite consistent throughout the PL era. It was understandable when most teams in England would buy players off each other, but this rule remains true even now, when many buy from abroad. It gives a good indication as to what players from the past would’ve roughly cost today, and also how expensive a top player actually should be, in the current market climate right now. For example, last year, the league combined received £860M in transfer fees, the top signings Nunez was £85M, so 10% of the total received, Anthony £90M just over 10% and Enzo Fernandez came in at about 12%. Year on year there’s also a consistent trend from around 1993 that the total transfer income of the league x 2 is usually what is spent out. The league as a whole spend more money than they receive in transfers every year.

To give you some context from the past, in 1993 Utd broke the British transfer record fee for Roy Keane at around £4M. The entire league made just over £60M that year in transfers, so this deal was 8% of that total.

In 1994 a year later, Utd broke the record transfer again for Andy Cole, this time for nearly double the amount of Keane, at around £7M. But the entire league received more, and this one deal worked out at around 10% compared with the transfer income.

In 1995, Arsenal broke the record with the signing of Bergkamp for £7.5M, which was at 9% of the total. Liverpool then broke that record shortly after, with the signing of Collymore for 8.5M, which came in at 11% of the total.

In 1996, Newcastle bought Shearer for a British and world record fee of £16M. The league received around £100M in total, and this was a deal on the higher end, and worked at about 16% of the overall transfer income.

In 1997, Utd bought Henning Berg for 7.5M, which was nearly half the record price at the time, and it worked out at 5% of the total league income. Chelsea and Aston Villa had the highest individual transfers of the season, with Greame Le Saux going to Chelsea, and Stan Collymore going to Aston Villa, both worked out at 10% of the total league income.

In 1998 Utd signed Yorke for a fee of £18M, it was record money for the time, and again, it was around 9% compared to the total income.

In 2001 Utd got Veron for a record fee of £28M, it was a high price, and it was around 14% in comparison with the leagues income at the time. In todays market, we can work that out to be at about £120-£130M. They also signed Van Nistelrooy for £20M, working out at 11%, so in todays money around, £100-£110M.

In 2002, Utd broke the record fee again with Ferdinand for £30M from Leeds. The income was slightly lower this year, but this figure equated to 25% of the leagues total transfer income, which is the highest ever %. It shows you what a huge price it was. It was a ridiculous figure at the time for any player, especially a CB. To put it in perspective, today it would be around £215M. Ferdinand was a good player, but I don’t recall the media ridiculing Utd for over the top spending on this one. I checked out a few articles, and I was right, they didn’t, all they did was heap praise on him and analyse his potential. Which to be fair, is what they should do with every major signing for every club.

In 2003, they bought C.Ronaldo for £13M. We are told to marvel at the bargain price for the then 17 year old. But this was actually still 9% compared with the total that year. So it was still a high signing, today it would be around £75m-£80M for a relatively unknown teenager from Portugal. Worked out well, but only a big budget team would be able to do that, not exactly bargain shopping.

In 2004, they got Rooney for over double Ronaldo’s price at £30M, and that equated to double the %, coming in at 20%. Again, it’s at the very higher end of the scale, and suggest Utd could afford to pay double what they should to get him. In todays money, that would be £172M.

In 2006 they bought the most expensive player again, Michael Carrick came in at a figure of just below £20M which again, was 10% of the total for the year and today would cost between £100-£110M.

In 2007 they played the window slightly differently, they bought 3 players, Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves’s for a combined 20% total comparison. Instead of throwing it all into one big signing. Today that would be around £200M in signings.

In 2008 we had our takeover, so I stopped looking at them at this point and instead looked at some of our own highest transfers to see how we faired with comparison, this is what I saw:

Grealish - signed 2021 -14%
Dias - signed 2021 - 11%
Rodri - signed 2019 - 5%
Mahrez - signed 2018 - 11%.
KDB - signed 2015 - 10%
Sterling - signed 2015 - 9%
Aguero - signed 2011 - 9%
Dzeko - signed 2010 - 10%
Yaya - signed 2010 - 9%
David Silva - signed 2010 - 8%
Tevez - signed 2009 - 5%
Robinho - signed 2008 - 8%

Seems like we’re pretty good at getting players for fair market prices. I don’t see anything in this that suggests we’ve done anything too differently from any other team in the past, especially Utd. Fergusons strategy was often to sign individual players for the highest fees, and mainly from other English clubs even if it meant paying, way over the odds.

As you can see, the market value for players, correlates well with the income received. The income from transfers increases pretty much year on year. So based upon that, the income should be in the region of around £1.1 - 1.2B, next season. Meaning the top marquee signings, should probably go in the region of £110-£120M, for a fair value. This is how the inflation in football in England seems to go, and the next record transfer will be around this figure, unless a club pays over the odds.
Click to expand...
Very informative post.
Thanks for taking the time to put that together.
 
Bez said:
Agreed. City would obliterate that United team at every level. City's fitness levels, technical skills, tactical nous, game management, team working etc etc. Its laughable, but highly predictable that people associated with Manches Hunidead keep referencing the great team of 1999.
Click to expand...
That 99 team ain't even their best team the 2008 one is by far superior, that 99 team was just a decent Prem side that got very lucky against Juve, Bayern in champs league and Arsenal Chelsea in the FAC and won the league with was it 79 points,
There was also no expectation on that 99 team until the very end of tht season so less pressure
Compare that to the ramped up pressure this City team has dealt with over the last 3 months where every man and his dog has been talking about the treble, it's different levels
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Remember when English journalists used to celebrate the dominance of English clubs in Europe.

You know, around 2008….
Click to expand...
I was only a teenager at the time so might be remembering incorrectly. But I recall an article before the 1999 CL final along the lines of "we are all United" which basically went on about how the whole country was behind United for the final.

Hope I'm not misremembering it!
 
give it to gordon said:
Two English non red top teams in the finals of Europe and our press moan. Yet when the dippers are in a European final the press/media say we should all get behind dipperpool as they an English club. Fuck off
Click to expand...
Too fuckin' right, gitg! The call to get behind English teams only applies to those based in Trafford, L4, Islington 'n Haringey! City have been pilloried within the English media ever since the Good Sheikh dusted off his chequebook.
 
Skip Donoghue said:
That 99 team ain't even their best team the 2008 one is by far superior, that 99 team was just a decent Prem side that got very lucky against Juve, Bayern in champs league and Arsenal Chelsea in the FAC and won the league with was it 79 points,
There was also no expectation on that 99 team until the very end of tht season so less pressure
Compare that to the ramped up pressure this City team has dealt with over the last 3 months where every man and his dog has been talking about the treble, it's different levels
Click to expand...
I thought the 99 team were shit. Was that the CL victory when battered by Munich and then flukes a couple of goals.
I’ll take my team every day of the week and twice on a rainy day
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't even know what his point is. Every PL team would be in that position if they are successful. We should all feel bad, or at least not celebrate properly, because we earn more than the opposition? What is it with these guys not wanting people to enjoy themselves? Miserable bastards.
Click to expand...
Once more, EVERY team is in West Ham’s position of financial superiority relative to another team somewhere, and that only becomes more true as the team becomes more successful.

Should their achievements then be discounted because their is always a worse off club they have played on the way to whatever success they have achieved?

The likes of Brighton a little over ten years ago were less successful compared to Championship and Premier League teams (and so much poorer than a large portion of teams across Europe)—which was, according to Barney’s logic, likely when they were fine as a club—but now that they are top six in the Premier League, they are richer than 99% of football clubs on earth, and should thus be ashamed, it seems.

Success, with even middling management, leads to financial power. And there is no club on earth that is going to forgo the riches just to maintain some asinine notion of “moral superiority”.

It is an idiotic line of reasoning that falls flat under even cursory inspection. But the thick rag, dipper, and arse masses will swallow it whole and parrot it ad nauseam, completely oblivious to the irony inherent to their doing so.

Which, to be fair, is how most of them operate generally, and Barney knows this. He is all-too-aware that this sort of assertion will get more engagement than a reasoned position.

It’s all a game of clicks and shares, so their media company can become more successful and more financially powerful.

And, according to Barney, they should be ashamed of that.
 
ballbag said:
When West Ham, who have been down amongst the bottom of the league for a large part of the season, are getting pelters for having the nerve to reach a Euro final and be happy about it, you can safely say, the Guardian have got no idea of what football is about.

Barney Ronay, you take today's 'proper weird ****' award. Its usually a really close run thing too. Well done, you complete simpleton.

Wonder what he would have said if the swamp dwellers got past Sevilla? Actually, I DGAF.
Click to expand...
What happens to the European places if West Ham win? they did say a few years ago that they were not going to give extra places to English clubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.