Football Exchange Rate

[all_funkt_up]

Transfer valuations, madness in my opinion. Not just because we are talking about astronomical sums of money for players, but also because weighing up a plyers monetary worth must be very tough indeed.

Just how does one judge a player's value? I suppose like everything you buy day to day, its based on many factors. How much you need them, how much you have to spend and how much use will you get out of them.

Judging relative value will never be easy and I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you are Martin Jol for example, you might value a player at twice what someone else might. Depending on how much ou have to spend, where your team's weaknesses lie etc.

Anyway, I dont normally get all deep and philosphical and I promise I will snap out of it soon and start rattling on with my usual brand of low brow chit chat and hurling obscenities at all and sundry. But the whole transfer season has got me thinking about players values and transfers and the like.

Take Thierry henry for example, probably the finest forward I have ever seen in my life. He has it all: pace, control, a great passing ability and he can take set pieces. He is 'allowed' to move for £16million and commands a salary inexcess of £100k a week so we are led to believe.

Then you look at Darren Bent and I ask myself how a player contracted to a second division club, can command the same fee and terms when moving to Tottenham. Gone are the days of clubs shifting their stars for knock down fee's when they get relegated. I just cant see the logic though from a Spurs point of view, paying that amount of money for a wholly un-exceptional player. Bent has always struck me as a good, but fairly average Premiership player. He scores goals, he grafts hard, but isnt in the same league as Henry.

Next I move north to the land that football forgot, Newcastle. There you have Michael Owen with a £9m buy-out clause in his contract. A proven forward who always has knocked goals in for fun at every club he has played for. There are lingering injury concerns with regards to the player, but for a fee of under £10m you would have to say that it is worth a go. In the current climate, £10m doesnt even buy you Andy Johnson or some other second rate forward. Michael Owen is a class goalscorer and one that we know will score succeed in the Premiership.

With that in mind, it beggars belief that Liverpool should be interested in purchasing Fernando Torres for a fee 3 times Owen's valuation. With Torres you have a striker with an average La Liga goals/game ratio but a transfer fee that is anything but average. I cant see why we would spend an astronomical amount of money on a player such as he. Hopefully I will be proven wrong and he will turn out to be a class act. But I still cant see the value in signing a relatively un-proven player for such a large fee, when Owen is available for a fraction of it.

That's what I'm talking about, relativity. How do Atletico value Torres at 3-times Michael Owen? I really fail to see how they can. Then again, it seems we are happy to cough up the money and seal the deal. So therefore, their valuation must be spot on if we are prepared to pay.

Another person I would bring into the equation is Carlitos Tevez. He struck me last year as an extremely skilful player. But more than that, he's a little battler, a grafter and he got stuck in when the shit hit the fan at Upton Park. Maybe that's why the Hammers fans liked him so much. So how can another proven Premiership striker be valued on a par with a Spanish mabe like Torres? Surely the fact that someone has scored in the Premiership should increase their value to any prospective club? Apparently not as Tevez is valued roughly the same as our mate Fernando.

I cant believe I am going to actually say this, but at £30m, I think Tevez is actually a value buy. Quite how paying that much money for a human being, that might break his legs 10 minutes into his debut or rupture his cruciate while knocking a ball around in training, could be classed as value I dont know. But in the current climate, it doesnt seem such a bad price to pay for him.

[andeeeee]

its the tv money what sets the transfer figures. imo

[all_funkt_up]

Aye they give the clubs over here unprecidented spending power. Still doesnt explain why you would spend £27m on Torres when you could get Owen and Henry for that amount though does it?

[GaNgStA kEeKs]

Originally Posted by all_funkt_up

Aye they give the clubs over here unprecidented spending power. Still doesnt explain why you would spend £27m on Torres when you could get Owen and Henry for that amount though does it?

Henry i understand because at his age £16 million is still a hefty fee. Bit like Shevchenko wasn't it going for £30 million even though he is at the tail end of his career.

Either of these players would be £30+ easily if they were a few years younger.

Dont quite understand the Owen one as its ridiculously low fee for him. You feel Newcastle only put it in to keep him happy as they went all out to make him sign and it could come back to bite them in the arse.

Torres and Bent both young but i dont think anyone can say they are value buys at them fee's.

[all_funkt_up]

Henry is still the most complete forward in the game and has at least 4 years left in him IMO.

[GaNgStA kEeKs]

Originally Posted by all_funkt_up

Henry is still the most complete forward in the game and has at least 4 years left in him IMO.

Cant argue with that to be honest. Thinking around i cant think of many who have been as consistent of him. Only other one i can think of would be God himself, Henrik Larsson

[andeeeee]

Originally Posted by Kiko

Torres and Bent both young but i dont think anyone can say they are value buys at them fee's.

all ifs and buts , if el nino scores the goals and liverpool finish the season as champions either here or abroad then 26mil will be a bargain. once rafa sells afew strikers the initial fee will drop to around 15mil or lower

[all_funkt_up]

Indeed. I would like to see a cannier deal though.

I like to see an amount paid up-front and the rest paid based on the player's performance. So £15mil up front with maybe a few mil when we win the Premiership, some more based on the goals he scored in the season and so on.

I think they are more sensible, because if a player flops then we dont entirely lose out.

With this deal though, I believe it's 50% upfront and then the remainder payable by instalments.

[rcgills]

Originally Posted by all_funkt_up

That's what I'm talking about, relativity. How do Atletico value Torres at 3-times Michael Owen? I really fail to see how they can. Then again, it seems we are happy to cough up the money and seal the deal. So therefore, their valuation must be spot on if we are prepared to pay.

Might be wrong here, but I think all Spanish players have a release clause value inserted in their contract. Atletico set Torres' fee as €40m. They'd be quite happy to keep him, but if someone gullible enough to pay that kind of money comes along, then they'll gladly accept it.

[crowie]

Think its a big gamble when your looking at spending £25m or so on a player based on performances in other leagues. Your prime example being Shevchenko, looked the bollocks at Milan but he hasn't done it so far in England. Maybe he will have a Drogba like 2nd season, once he is more attuned to the pace & physicality of the league but I ain't holding my breath waiting for it.

Likewise Torres, looks decent enough in Spain but its a different league (obviously) in England. Maybe he just won't translate his form to the EPL way of playing. Come to think of it, has there been any or many successful exports from Spain to Italy or England? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Bit of a gamble at £25m+, especially when you ain't Chelsea and can just right it off it he turns out to be a dud.

The Henry/Bent thing is the best (or worst) example of mentalness though. Ok Henry had a ropey season with injuries last season but I think he needed a break after the WC, missed a fair bit of pre-season and just never "caught up" at any point in the season. He will be a different player, or most probably the same as usual player, this coming season I would suspect.

The fee is silly too. Shevchenko moved as a 29 year old for £30m, Henry for £16m. I think many people still suddenly think "Ohh, approaching 30 year old, nearly past it then, all downhill from here on". Aye, sure if its 1980's England and your training routine is 8 pints down the Dog and Duck after training followed by steak and chips for tea each night. Players look after themselves much better nowadays, Henry in full flow looks like a fucking machine. Not an ounce of fat on him, looks more like a racehorse than a footy player (or is that RVN ).

The thing is, I think you will easily get 4 seasons from Henry, £4m a season, a bargain, and he will still only be 33. Good players look after themselves much better, last longer. FFS you have players like Sheringham still in the EPL at 40, Larsson did a decent job at Barca at 35 or whatever, Baggio in Italy in recent seasons.

I would say over the next 4 seasons that Thierry Henry contributes more to Barca success than Darren Bent will in the EPL for Tottenham.

[all_funkt_up]

I would agree about Henry crowie. Even when his pace deserts him (and that looks like being a good few years yet) he is still a very skilful player who isnt at all one dimensional. When Owen's pace goes, you have a problem, but I think Henry could adapt to being a playmaker or a player "in the hole" whose movement and footballing brian makes up for the lack of pace.

[blatt1]

hello I#m here again