Uncle Albert Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Presumably Bale and Walcott were on about 40k a week as kids at Saints before joining spurs and arsenal then. Do you think Arsene was sat there working out his wage to contract value when he bid a fee rising to £12m? Or did he think, ****, this player is good, we want him before someone else snaps him up. Well Arsenal only paid £5million upfront for Theo Walcott so no, Wenger didn't think that, he played it cautiously and went for the installment way with him. So in reality Arsenal paid £5million for a kid who was an unknown as he had only played 15 odd games in the Championship, completely different to Liam Moore. Again Bale wasn't the prized possession at Southampton before he went to Spurs and Walcott was 16, so no their contracts weren't taken into account, they were signed on the basis they had the potential to be World Class footballers, are Fulham interested in Liam for that reason? I would say no, maybe on the basis he could be an England International but not World Class. If you're in no position to sell a player then their contract value comes into account, that's modern day football.
StanSP Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Nugent definitely not on £35k p/w. Even with a Sven contract he's not on that.
Babylon Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Well Arsenal only paid £5million upfront for Theo Walcott so no, Wenger didn't think that, he played it cautiously and went for the installment way with him. So in reality Arsenal paid £5million for a kid who was an unknown as he had only played 15 odd games in the Championship, completely different to Liam Moore. Again Bale wasn't the prized possession at Southampton before he went to Spurs and Walcott was 16, so no their contracts weren't taken into account, they were signed on the basis they had the potential to be World Class footballers, are Fulham interested in Liam for that reason? I would say no, maybe on the basis he could be an England International but not World Class. If you're in no position to sell a player then their contract value comes into account, that's modern day football. So what you are saying is that the supply and demand economic model, only works with other footballers, and not Liam Moore. His value is soley based on a wage to contract length ratio.
Uncle Albert Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 So what you are saying is that the supply and demand economic model, only works with other footballers, and not Liam Moore. His value is soley based on a wage to contract length ratio. At not one point did I ever imply that. Is Liam Moore the player at Leicester who is currently worth the most amount of money in the future?
Babylon Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 At not one point did I ever imply that. Well that's what it seems like, as every time an example of someone who would have been on shit wages gets sold for good money you say "oh but that's different". It's not, if something is in short supply, and in demand, then their value is dictated by that and the market, and has nothing to do with what that player happens to be earning a that time.
Uncle Albert Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 You have gave two examples, one of a 16 year old kid who was dubbed a wonder kid and went on to a World Cup the 6 months after he went to Arsenal and one of an 18 year old who wasn't really rated, they're not the greatest two examples, Walcott probably was their prized possession and Arsenal had to pay £5million upfront for a 16 year old kid. Liam Moore isn't worth as much now as he would be if he had just signed a 4 year contract, simple as that. A Liam Moore with 18 months on his £5,000 a week contract is worth £2million but a Liam Moore on a 4 year deal worth £15,000 a week is worth a lot more than £2million.
hackneyfox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 I'd have thought the amount a player is on has as much to do with the fee as how much the buying team actaully needs the player does. If a manger is limited by financial constraints as to what he can spend on a player then he'll be able to pay more for a player who is on 5k a week and will accept 15k a week then he can for a player who is on 20k and expects 30k. The more a player is on may actually decrease the amount you could expect to get for them.
hackneyfox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 You have gave two examples, one of a 16 year old kid who was dubbed a wonder kid and went on to a World Cup the 6 months after he went to Arsenal and one of an 18 year old who wasn't really rated, they're not the greatest two examples, Walcott probably was their prized possession and Arsenal had to pay £5million upfront for a 16 year old kid. Liam Moore isn't worth as much now as he would be if he had just signed a 4 year contract, simple as that. A Liam Moore with 18 months on his £5,000 a week contract is worth £2million but a Liam Moore on a 4 year deal worth £15,000 a week is worth a lot more than £2million. If the purchasing club are happy to pay him 20k a week regardless of what we pay him then I don't see why the transfer price should increase. Surely the only time the length of a contract affects a transfer fee is when the players contract is close to expiring.
Babylon Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 You have gave two examples, one of a 16 year old kid who was dubbed a wonder kid and went on to a World Cup the 6 months after he went to Arsenal and one of an 18 year old who wasn't really rated, they're not the greatest two examples, Walcott probably was their prized possession and Arsenal had to pay £5million upfront for a 16 year old kid. I'm sorry what, an 18 year old who wasn't rated? If you are talking about Bale, then quite clearly he was bloody rated considering his deal was a combined £10m... for a left back! Liam Moore isn't worth as much now as he would be if he had just signed a 4 year contract, simple as that. You said wages as well. A Liam Moore with 18 months on his £5,000 a week contract is worth £2million but a Liam Moore on a 4 year deal worth £15,000 a week is worth a lot more than £2million. So lets say you had Liam more getting 5k and Liam Moore earning 15k.... both with 18 months on their contract. You are saying the one earning more is actually going to cost another team more. Even though it's the same player? Sorry, but this just makes no sense. If the purchasing club are happy to pay him 20k a week regardless of what we pay him then I don't see why the transfer price should increase. Surely the only time the length of a contract affects a transfer fee is when the players contract is close to expiring. Exactly. Thank Christ, thought I was going sodding loopy.
sylofox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Well that's what it seems like, as every time an example of someone who would have been on shit wages gets sold for good money you say "oh but that's different". It's not, if something is in short supply, and in demand, then their value is dictated by that and the market, and has nothing to do with what that player happens to be earning a that time. Babs this may be less painful for you.
Uncle Albert Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 If he was on £15,000 a week with 18 months on his contract he would be worth more than Fulham's valuation.
AKCJ Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Yes, that's probably why Fulham are offering around £2million for him, because his contract isn't worth much.. This is why I've been saying Leicester should get him to sign now. You get your prized assets tied down, because then they're worth more money, like Suarez, didn't Bale sign a contract the summer before he went Madrid? That'll be why we let Beckford on 40k a week go to Bolton for for 1m then It has nothing to do with it.
sylofox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Right now liam is worth 2mil if we accept it or More than 50mil if we told a club that offered 50mil to fvck off And It don't matter if he is on £500 a week or £500,000 a week FFS
sylofox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 If he was on £15,000 a week with 18 months on his contract he would be worth more than Fulham's valuation. Really 78 x £15,000 is 1,170.000 Thats more than 2mill?
Babylon Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 If he was on £15,000 a week with 18 months on his contract he would be worth more than Fulham's valuation. No, no he wouldn't.
Uncle Albert Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Oh my God, what are you lot not grasping about the concept.. Leicester NEEDED/WANTED to get rid of Beckford, so they were willing to let him go at a cut down price. Do Leicester want to let Liam Moore go for £2million? No. Why? Because they don't want to sell him and they feel he is worth more money than that, he only has 18 months left, in a years time he can start speaking to other clubs, then he could go for free, his value is decreasing because of this. IF, like I have said from the start, Leicester sign Liam up on a longer contract with higher wages then automatically his transfer value will increase with the contract, that's clear business on Leicester's part, are they going to potentially pay a player out £3.1million in the length of his contract or sell him for less? Especially when they don't want to sell. So if a club wants Liam Moore then they are going to have to pay more than his contract worth AND the value that Leicester rate him at, realistically that is.
hackneyfox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 As we haven't actually paid him in advance for the remaining 18 months of his contract then his salry and length of contract have nothing to do with how much we would sell him for or how much Fulham will offer. If h was on a ridiculously high salary that could actually cut the amount Fulham would be willing to pay as they would be looking at the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus salary.
dmayne7 Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Oh my God, what are you lot not grasping about the concept.. Leicester NEEDED/WANTED to get rid of Beckford, so they were willing to let him go at a cut down price. Do Leicester want to let Liam Moore go for £2million? No. Why? Because they don't want to sell him and they feel he is worth more money than that, he only has 18 months left, in a years time he can start speaking to other clubs, then he could go for free, his value is decreasing because of this. IF, like I have said from the start, Leicester sign Liam up on a longer contract with higher wages then automatically his transfer value will increase with the contract, that's clear business on Leicester's part, are they going to potentially pay a player out £3.1million in the length of his contract or sell him for less? Especially when they don't want to sell. So if a club wants Liam Moore then they are going to have to pay more than his contract worth AND the value that Leicester rate him at, realistically that is. Contract length is what affects the value of a player not his wages. If a player is on a ridiculous salary then a club is more likely to accept a lower value as, if you think about it, they will be saving 'x' on wages from offsetting the player. You're right in the sense that the more money a player is on, the more they are worth to a club but that's not what affects his value. There are plenty of cases of players being on huge sums of money as a key player at their club but then they become deemed as surplus to requirements and their club factors that in when trying to get rid. The value of the contract is then a part of of the puzzle but only ever drives down price. If anything, the higher amount of the weekly wage, the less a club will want for a player.
Mack Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Any fan who has seen us play regularly this season will know that Wes Morgan and Liam Moore is our best central defensive pairing. Why would be want to weaken our defence and our chances if promotion underselling our biggest young stat? And why would Liam want to go there and lose a starting place and potentially find himself on the bench. It makes sense to everyone including the lad to leave things as they are and see where we are in the summer. The only way I see that good sense being challenged is if someone offered £5 million plus.
Babylon Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 IF, like I have said from the start, Leicester sign Liam up on a longer contract with higher wages then automatically his transfer value will increase with the contract, that's clear business on Leicester's part, are they going to potentially pay a player out £3.1million in the length of his contract or sell him for less? Especially when they don't want to sell. So if a club wants Liam Moore then they are going to have to pay more than his contract worth AND the value that Leicester rate him at, realistically that is. That depend what he's WORTH, which is not dictated by what he's EARNING!!!!!!!!!!! There is no relation between what a player is paid and their value. Paul Gallagher gets more than half our squad, and no ****er would pay £3.50 for him. Why, because he's shit. Liam Moore is probably one of the most poorly paid, but he's valued higher than most. Why, because he's good. The deciding factor is their ability and nothing to do with their wages.
pazzerfox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Why is everyone getting so angry....Put your tampons back in, we rejected the bid and told Fulham he is not for sale!!!!
hackneyfox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Any fan who has seen us play regularly this season will know that Wes Morgan and Liam Moore is our best central defensive pairing. I'd like to see Was & Moore play together, I think they could be the strongest pairing.
Out Foxed Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 I'd like to see Was & Moore play together, I think they could be the strongest pairing. nah. was is way more likely to do something stupid.
dannythefox Posted 16 January 2014 Posted 16 January 2014 Moore is probably worth 6M+ in the current market for and English player, he's only 20 and will go on to play for a top club in time Fulham would be a crap move for him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.