MC Prussian Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Can we please stop mentioning and fantasizing about Wayne Rooney in an LCFC-related thread and be a bit more realistic, please? All this talk is ludicrous.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Your old thread is merely six weeks old - hardly "months". And do you change your opinion this often - eight, nine times per annum? Would you call this "solid"? [/ No, once... It's changed with what I saw near the end of the season.. Not cos you and your buddies wanted it to.. What did you think of my substantive ideas? You didn't mention them?
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 The only people who get "booted" are ones that consistently break forum rules... and even some of them don't get banned. Nobody had EVER been banned because they had an opinion (contrary to the belief of some posters on here). Nothing in his post would be deemed by any moderator o n this board as enough to warrant a warning let alone anything else. If you think someone suggesting you are acting like a teenager if worthy of such action then it's a good job you aren't a mod as there would be nobody left on here. You are missing the point on purpose babs... It's the personal attacks that rile people up and piss people off.. Points of view are fine, but the abuse that comes with it is nor needed. If you are a moderator then I don't think you're doing your job well enough with the stuff I've read on here over the past few weeks.. This site is becoming vitriolic...
Winchester Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Why lower league clubs buy out of contract players have more to do with that no one wants them. The annual total cost of a player is the annual total cost. That don't change in a capitalistic society. If a club could get quality for less than zero shouldn't everybody do that? ....but also to do with the fact that a player who is in a contract is going to cost more.... they're not buying crap players, they're buying bargains. there's only so many out of contract players each year. If a big club wants a certain player they're not going to wait 2,3,4 years until they're out of contract they'll pay now, and they'll pay a big price for it. And a capitalist society does work like that. (see previous post regarding Bebe transfer, that previous club made a heck of a deal!) Have you seen the house foreclosures over the last 3 years? Take for example my house here in the states. I bought it foreclosed for 60k. The city valued it at 85k. The bank valued it at 75k. My mortgage broker valued it at 120k. If you wanted to buy it today I wouldn't sell it for less than the 90k I owe on it, and since I like it and I don't want the hassle of trying to find another house at the moment I'd probably hold out for 100k. which you might be willing to pay you really liked it...however you could get a similarly spec-ed house for 70k on the foreclosure market. You might have to wait and you might have to make a few compromises or pay extra fees, but you CAN save considerable money that way. The values between buyers and sellers is waaaaaay different, it's only circumstance and necessity that makes transactions possible. It's all about cutting out the middle man/men. "buy direct, save money" The fewer people you have to pay, the less it costs etc etc. Putting aside the rooneys and kakas, for most players the best they could hope to demand is a split-the-difference between a normal signing bonus and what they're transfer value is. ie, my last club wanted to sell me for 8m, you give me 4m, save yourself 4m and we'll both come away smiling.
B52 Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 1. No it isnt 2. Players that dont sign new contracts generally dont want to be at the club anymore not because they can sell themselves to another club for their market value (because they cannot) 3. Rooneys sign on fee would probaly be more than £2m but no where near his value of £30m. 1. Please explain in a locical way. My reason to believe this is bits and pieces in the press and how you do business. 2. Maybe not their market value but much more than if they had a contract as a start. Players no one wants is a different story they have to take what they can get. 3. Do you have an example of a complete contract between a club and a demanded player on the free. With bonus, clauses etc...
Haydos Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 1. Please explain in a locical way. My reason to believe this is bits and pieces in the press and how you do business. 2. Maybe not their market value but much more than if they had a contract as a start. Players no one wants is a different story they have to take what they can get. 3. Do you have an example of a complete contract between a club and a demanded player on the free. With bonus, clauses etc... Do you?
B52 Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 ....but also to do with the fact that a player who is in a contract is going to cost more.... they're not buying crap players, they're buying bargains. there's only so many out of contract players each year. If a big club wants a certain player they're not going to wait 2,3,4 years until they're out of contract they'll pay now, and they'll pay a big price for it. And a capitalist society does work like that. (see previous post regarding Bebe transfer, that previous club made a heck of a deal!) Have you seen the house foreclosures over the last 3 years? Take for example my house here in the states. I bought it foreclosed for 60k. The city valued it at 85k. The bank valued it at 75k. My mortgage broker valued it at 120k. If you wanted to buy it today I wouldn't sell it for less than the 90k I owe on it, and since I like it and I don't want the hassle of trying to find another house at the moment I'd probably hold out for 100k. which you might be willing to pay you really liked it...however you could get a similarly spec-ed house for 70k on the foreclosure market. You might have to wait and you might have to make a few compromises or pay extra fees, but you CAN save considerable money that way. The values between buyers and sellers is waaaaaay different, it's only circumstance and necessity that makes transactions possible. It's all about cutting out the middle man/men. "buy direct, save money" The fewer people you have to pay, the less it costs etc etc. Putting aside the rooneys and kakas, for most players the best they could hope to demand is a split-the-difference between a normal signing bonus and what they're transfer value is. ie, my last club wanted to sell me for 8m, you give me 4m, save yourself 4m and we'll both come away smiling. Thanks for a more elaborated answer. I agree with most of your post. But I still think out of contract players, not the bottom, gets hefty deals. I give an example. If a players market value is worth 10 million. He is on free transfer and the clubs bid for him. He wants a 4 year contract. What do you believe the clubs are willing to pay for his services? Do you think they stop at 3 million because he is a free transfer? In the books they are willing to pay a certain amount for a certain player and that doesn't change if he's on a contract or a free transfer. I would love to see a few real life examples wich contradicts my theory.
B52 Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Do you? No, only a few classes in economics with marketing a long time ago.
Winchester Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Thanks for a more elaborated answer. I agree with most of your post. But I still think out of contract players, not the bottom, gets hefty deals. I give an example. If a players market value is worth 10 million. He is on free transfer and the clubs bid for him. He wants a 4 year contract. What do you believe the clubs are willing to pay for his services? Do you think they stop at 3 million because he is a free transfer? In the books they are willing to pay a certain amount for a certain player and that doesn't change if he's on a contract or a free transfer. I would love to see a few real life examples wich contradicts my theory. It's really hard to say, as there are numerous variables and theoretic possibilities in every transfer. I don't think buying clubs cap their spending on a free transfer, but i doubt an OOC player would demand as much as his club would have when selling him - especially if his club was in the middle of a contract. A player with 4 years remaining always cost more coz A) they can let him rot on the benches out of spite B) they want compensation for the value of 'potential' they already have arranged. Also, there aren't that many OOC players, no clubs want to let a player go away for nothing so it doesn't happen that often. The Joe Cole one was probably the most significant and unusual one in recent memory. Regarding your example: He's worth 10m so I imagine quite a few clubs could offer him a bonus that high. However, if Blackburn offer 10m and United offer him 6m he's free to go to united for the cut rate price. If he was at Chelsea with 3 years left on his contract, Chelsea could force united to match or exceed blackburn's bid. Or they could decide they don't want the player going to their biggest rivals and either sell him to someone else or let him sulk in reserves. As i said, free transfers don't guarantee a great deal, but with one less money-grubber to deal with they're a good chance to save some money- especially if you're a desirable club in the eyes of that player.
Babylon Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 If you are a moderator then I don't think you're doing your job well enough with the stuff I've read on here over the past few weeks.. Telling someone they are acting like a child is not against the rules. If you don't like how the forum is run I suggest you go elsewhere, people give up their free time to try and keep this place running... they certainly don't deserve the shit they get for it. Heaven knows what you'd make of some of the pm's I have received off certain people.
Wymsey Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 I agree with Babylon very much. Back on topic, this 'unlimited budget' query will be answered before the transfer window shuts. Time will tell.
B52 Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 It's really hard to say, as there are numerous variables and theoretic possibilities in every transfer. I don't think buying clubs cap their spending on a free transfer, but i doubt an OOC player would demand as much as his club would have when selling him - especially if his club was in the middle of a contract. A player with 4 years remaining always cost more coz A) they can let him rot on the benches out of spite B) they want compensation for the value of 'potential' they already have arranged. Also, there aren't that many OOC players, no clubs want to let a player go away for nothing so it doesn't happen that often. The Joe Cole one was probably the most significant and unusual one in recent memory. Regarding your example: He's worth 10m so I imagine quite a few clubs could offer him a bonus that high. However, if Blackburn offer 10m and United offer him 6m he's free to go to united for the cut rate price. If he was at Chelsea with 3 years left on his contract, Chelsea could force united to match or exceed blackburn's bid. Or they could decide they don't want the player going to their biggest rivals and either sell him to someone else or let him sulk in reserves. As i said, free transfers don't guarantee a great deal, but with one less money-grubber to deal with they're a good chance to save some money- especially if you're a desirable club in the eyes of that player. "there are numerous variables and theoretic possibilities in every transfer" - This I like Our arguments is not so far apart.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 "there are numerous variables and theoretic possibilities in every transfer" - This I like Our arguments is not so far apart. This has to possibly be the most confusin thread ive read in ages... Is it me or am I missin summat here? The essence of your argument is that 'free transfers' end up as expensive as ones where the player is still under contract?
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 Telling someone they are acting like a child is not against the rules. If you don't like how the forum is run I suggest you go elsewhere, people give up their free time to try and keep this place running... they certainly don't deserve the shit they get for it. Heaven knows what you'd make of some of the pm's I have received off certain people. Fair play to ya babylon and I can imagine some of the shit you probably get. I don't want to go elsewhere cos some of the guys on here make for interestin reading. Ill have to bone up on my derogatory comments and abusive remarks. Maybe then I'll feel more at home? On second thoughts, I don't think I will. Your presence is of benefit to this forum mate
Winchester Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 "there are numerous variables and theoretic possibilities in every transfer" - This I like Our arguments is not so far apart. haha yes. but you know what i mean. Generally speaking free transfers will save a buyer some money, and usually enough to be smug about. But then you have those times when a 17 year old fredrico alberta sanchez is about to sign at united for 20 quid and a fiat punto but man city jumps in with wheelbarrow of cash and suddenly he's on 200k/week with a knighthood as a sweetener. Or you get a michael owen for free ( i don't think he even got a signing on bonus!) and peanuts for wages!
B52 Posted 13 June 2011 Posted 13 June 2011 This has to possibly be the most confusin thread ive read in ages... Is it me or am I missin summat here? The essence of your argument is that 'free transfers' end up as expensive as ones where the player is still under contract? If they are attractive, yes, but Winchesters variables and possibilities complicates the essence of my argument.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.