ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Every thread about a players ability almost immediately refers to how much they cost...why? Whether a player cost a thousand or a million really doesnt matter does it, or do we only judge players based on their ability divided by their cost? For the most part, the players dont decide how much they will be paid, how much the transfer fee will be etc, thats all down to agents, managers and club CEO's. Im sure given the opportuntiy most of us would try to increase our income if someone offered us a job. At the end of the day, how much Mills cost is irrelevant, if he isnt playing well enough to be in the side, then he isnt in the side. If Pantsil is getting x thousand pounds a week but is 2nd or 3rd choice, why do i care? The amount they cost is just part of the overall budget of the club, i dont decide if the beer or pies are good based on their price, so why do we think that about players?
MattyFromLE Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 You have a good point, but with big money - comes big expectations, and the players and fans have to realise that. I think the media portrail of us this season has been unhealthy, hence why i think under Pearson we will be a lot better business-wise as Pearson keeps his cards close!
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 I try not to judge footballers based on the costs but I certainly do other things I buy, it's about value for money. If you have a choice of paying £50 or £150 for an item or service you want to know what you're getting for the extra £100.
ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Author Posted 13 April 2012 eek... i have a point?... quick, close thread...close threadddd
ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Author Posted 13 April 2012 I try not to judge footballers based on the costs but I certainly do other things I buy, it's about value for money. If you have a choice of paying £50 or £150 for an item or service you want to know what you're getting for the extra £100. True, but often its just a case of supply and demand, in 1962 you could go and see the Beatles for free...in 1992 i paid $100 to see Paul McCartney. how do you judge the value?
Captain... Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Because football is all about money these days, it was never an issue in the past, there was no such thing as administration and clubs' futures weren't put into jeopardy by the owners reckless spending. It may be because we have experienced administration and got out of it relatively unscathed, but that has made our fans nervous about the amount of money we have spent on players and wages. I also blame football manager we all think we know the inner financial workings of a football club on and off the pitch because we have played that game, and never gone into administration doing so. This makes people think they are qualified to assess and judge the accounts of a club better than multi-millionnaire business men. I don't know if the lack of transparency also makes people more interested in it, back in the day you never had an undisclosed fee, we all knew how much we paid for a player and the actual money they were on. All this speculation on Matt Mills did he cost 5.5 million or 3.5 million or was it a package deal that could be worth 5.5million, it just adds to the debate. Finally the fact that players are on such astronomical wages that they earn more in a week than most do in a year, and it is on the back of our hard-earned money that they do that, it will obviously bring out more frustration when players aren't putting in the effort that we think they should. I think it is a combination of all of them and other factors such as the current economic crisis that make money a very important factor in everything we do, but more so in football when it is such obscene amounts.
Babylon Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 I paid $100 to see Paul McCartney. how do you judge the value? Did you enjoy it? How was the experience compared to other concerts? Is $100 worth an experience you won't forget?
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 True, but often its just a case of supply and demand, in 1962 you could go and see the Beatles for free...in 1992 i paid $100 to see Paul McCartney. how do you judge the value? You're not talking about the change in value over a period of time your talking about £4mill for Miils and selling Hobbs or £800K, is Mills worth £3mill+ more than Hobbs and I didn't overly rate Hobbs ( I'm not trying to turn this into a Mills topic). If I want to buy a Kettle and I like two but one is £30 and one is £25 then I look at the quality of the build, the reputation of the maker etc, I wont necessarily buy the most expensive one I'll buy the one I think is the best, that is the best value for my money which has a defined limit.
marbelladave Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 eek... i have a point?... quick, close thread...close threadddd Errrrrr, actually, no you don't. A club like Leicester has finite resources, so it matters a lot how the money is spent....... A player that fails to perform in relation to his cost to the club is a failure, simple as that! He is taking money from the club that could be used for more effective acquisitions. Now I accept that this failure to perform might not be the players fault, the club might overpay (Mills?) or the player might be a poor 'fit' (Beckford?) but he is still a failure. In some cases players work hard, behave appropriately and do their best but are still 'failures'. in this case it is usually the club management that is at fault, not the player.
Lobsterboyuk Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Good point, current championship fees and wages surely have a trickle-down effect from the tens of millions transfers by the biggest clubs - everything shifts up relative to that I.e. 5 million, 2.5 million ain't what it was
Babylon Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Davie, please put you old avatar back. I keep thinking it's an imposter.
Bayfox Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 People care, because however you dress it up it's our club. Maybe not in ownership, but no fans means no club. As football is now a business it's bad business to have someone on 25k a week doing nothing. as for judging a player by the price tag, when you sell jack hobbs for a million and spend 3-4 million on a replacement would you not expect to get a better player.
cc_star Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Yep, its about value. If you spend a fiver & the match is rubbish, it's only been a fiver wasted if you spent £35 then it's appalling. If you buy a £200 car that's a dud, or if you buy a £10k car It all comes back to the value you feel you feel you're getting for what it cost. If you spend peanuts on a player or you spend a few million & £35k/wk if they fall short the ramifications are very different, so it always comes back to cost, from which you have value.
ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Author Posted 13 April 2012 Did you enjoy it? How was the experience compared to other concerts? Is $100 worth an experience you won't forget? totally worth it, loved it, better than some concerts, not as good as others... but i imagine if had seen the beatles for sixpence that would have been unforgetable also but because at that time no one cared i couldve seen them for next to nothing You're not talking about the change in value over a period of time your talking about £4mill for Miils and selling Hobbs or £800K, is Mills worth £3mill+ more than Hobbs and I didn't overly rate Hobbs ( I'm not trying to turn this into a Mills topic). If I want to buy a Kettle and I like two but one is £30 and one is £25 then I look at the quality of the build, the reputation of the maker etc, I wont necessarily buy the most expensive one I'll buy the one I think is the best, that is the best value for my money which has a defined limit. Ahhh, but imagine the Mrs has asked for a green kettle to match the new dinner set... the same kettle is in white but costs 10 quid...or 20 quid in green..same kettle but the demand is greater...do you then judge how well the kettle has worked?
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Davie, please put you old avatar back. I keep thinking it's an imposter. I kept looking at the other guy's posts and thinking I'm going senile as I couldn't remember posting it, most disconcerting, something had to change and I hadn't the heart to ask ??? ( I can't remember their name perhaps I am senile ) to change thiers besides I'd had it for such a long time people might conclude I'm as boring as I sound. Think of it as me on holiday.
Captain... Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Yep, its about value. If you spend a fiver & the match is rubbish, it's only been a fiver wasted if you spent £35 then it's appalling. If you buy a £200 car that's a dud, or if you buy a £10k car It all comes back to the value you feel you feel you're getting for what it cost. If you spend peanuts on a player or you spend a few million & £35k/wk if they fall short the ramifications are very different, so it always comes back to cost, from which you have value. But it is not our cost, we are not directly paying for the player and we are not making a value judgement on them, that is not our job. Mills vs Hobbs is not a good comparison because of what has happened with Mills, but it does highlight the risk involved in making those decisions. Hobbs wasn't playing well, was out of sorts for whatever reason and coming towards the end of his contract, we could have kept him and hoped he got better and risked losing him for nothing or sold him, we weren't to know that his mentor would be back here a few months later, nor that hobbs was going to captain one of the meanest defences in the league. Likewise when we signed a well thought of, more experienced, in demand centre back to not only marshall the defence but to lead the team, we didn't know he would turn out to be a stroppy git and throw his toys out the pram, nor did we know the team was going to suffer a crisis of confidence. We can only judge these things in hindsight, at the time were many people saying Mills was overpriced? I don't remember and I wasn't really on this board much. It would have been a drop in the ocean if he had lead us to promotion this season and everybody would have said it was worth it.
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 totally worth it, loved it, better than some concerts, not as good as others... but i imagine if had seen the beatles for sixpence that would have been unforgetable also but because at that time no one cared i couldve seen them for next to nothing Ahhh, but imagine the Mrs has asked for a green kettle to match the new dinner set... the same kettle is in white but costs 10 quid...or 20 quid in green..same kettle but the demand is greater...do you then judge how well the kettle has worked? Well I/we would include in our assessment the satisfaction she got from having that particular kettle would it be worth the extra tenner taking into account how long we might stick with the green, were there plans to change the decor in the not too distant future etc. There's many things, depending on what you're buy that have to be considered but it all comes back to value for money. I've just made a sword, sheath and shield for my grandson because he asked me to, I could have bought one for less money, probably better too, but the sheer joy on his face when he told people I'd made it and the satisfaction I got from making it made it worth the extra cost and the time spent on it - we got better value for our money.
ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Author Posted 13 April 2012 Well I/we would include in our assessment the satisfaction she got from having that particular kettle would it be worth the extra tenner taking into account how long we might stick with the green, were there plans to change the decor in the not too distant future etc. There's many things, depending on what you're buy that have to be considered but it all comes back to value for money. I've just made a sword, sheath and shield for my grandson because he asked me to, I could have bought one for less money, probably better too, but the sheer joy on his face when he told people I'd made it and the satisfaction I got from making it made it worth the extra cost and the time spent on it - we got better value for our money. I wanna be your grandson...granted that would make you even older than you already are... nevertheless, a sword, sheath AND shield Surely thats evidence of it not being about value for money...its about providing what was wanted in the best way.
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 But it is not our cost, we are not directly paying for the player and we are not making a value judgement on them, that is not our job. Mills vs Hobbs is not a good comparison because of what has happened with Mills, but it does highlight the risk involved in making those decisions. Hobbs wasn't playing well, was out of sorts for whatever reason and coming towards the end of his contract, we could have kept him and hoped he got better and risked losing him for nothing or sold him, we weren't to know that his mentor would be back here a few months later, nor that hobbs was going to captain one of the meanest defences in the league. Likewise when we signed a well thought of, more experienced, in demand centre back to not only marshall the defence but to lead the team, we didn't know he would turn out to be a stroppy git and throw his toys out the pram, nor did we know the team was going to suffer a crisis of confidence. We can only judge these things in hindsight, at the time were many people saying Mills was overpriced? I don't remember and I wasn't really on this board much. It would have been a drop in the ocean if he had lead us to promotion this season and everybody would have said it was worth it. Perhaps we should have spent more time researching his background because it seems plenty of people in the game new about his temperament and it was just that his actual ability as CB was less than satisfactory, certainly not £3mill better than Hobbs even on Hobbs worse days and i didn't rate Hobbs. Whichever way you look at it Mills is poor value for money.
davieG Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 I wanna be your grandson...granted that would make you even older than you already are... nevertheless, a sword, sheath AND shield Surely thats evidence of it not being about value for money...its about providing what was wanted in the best way. Yes and the best is not always the most expensive, big fees do not guarantee you the best player, the do not guarantee you the best value for money.
Babylon Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 totally worth it, loved it, better than some concerts, not as good as others... but i imagine if had seen the beatles for sixpence that would have been unforgetable also but because at that time no one cared i couldve seen them for next to nothing Imagine if you'd bought the ticket expecting a mixture of Beatles, Wings and solo stuff.... and then all he played you was his last shitty album of covers. You'd think that was a waste of money.
ozleicester Posted 13 April 2012 Author Posted 13 April 2012 Imagine if you'd bought the ticket expecting a mixture of Beatles, Wings and solo stuff.... and then all he played you was his last shitty album of covers. You'd think that was a waste of money. Interesting, as that then ties in with what others have said.. which is you investigate before purchase. If i was told he was playing all the beatles and wings stuff.. then i bought the tickets and he played all the crap covers, i would be disapointed.. but would it be the money i spent that was the basis of my disapointment?
Zingari Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Every thread about a players ability almost immediately refers to how much they cost...why? Whether a player cost a thousand or a million really doesnt matter does it, or do we only judge players based on their ability divided by their cost? For the most part, the players dont decide how much they will be paid, how much the transfer fee will be etc, thats all down to agents, managers and club CEO's. Im sure given the opportuntiy most of us would try to increase our income if someone offered us a job. At the end of the day, how much Mills cost is irrelevant, if he isnt playing well enough to be in the side, then he isnt in the side. If Pantsil is getting x thousand pounds a week but is 2nd or 3rd choice, why do i care? The amount they cost is just part of the overall budget of the club, i dont decide if the beer or pies are good based on their price, so why do we think that about players? Every thread about a players ability almost immediately refers to how much they cost...why? Whether a player cost a thousand or a million really doesnt matter does it, or do we only judge players based on their ability divided by their cost? For the most part, the players dont decide how much they will be paid, how much the transfer fee will be etc, thats all down to agents, managers and club CEO's. Im sure given the opportuntiy most of us would try to increase our income if someone offered us a job. At the end of the day, how much Mills cost is irrelevant, if he isnt playing well enough to be in the side, then he isnt in the side. If Pantsil is getting x thousand pounds a week but is 2nd or 3rd choice, why do i care? The amount they cost is just part of the overall budget of the club, i dont decide if the beer or pies are good based on their price, so why do we think that about players? I fully agree with ozleicester and so presumably does NP judging by his team selections
Jon the Hat Posted 13 April 2012 Posted 13 April 2012 Becuase the cost of player is a proxy for their quality. And if an expensive player is crap then they are underperforming.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.