aCe' wrote:Bad Bob wrote:ConnO'var wrote:It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.
Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.
This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee. If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters. Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario. As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.
As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance. I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker." Which to me is a ridiculous statement. What's the sliding scale? Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?
But Bob, surely certain price brackets (20mill+ or 30mill+) at least on paper should imply a certain caliber of player when it comes to transfer fees. How else would clubs come to a valuation of players to buy ?
End of the day, if we pay 20mill for a player we expect the quality of the player (and hence his performances) to reflect that amount. The debate of potential quality is a different one, and one I assume many wouldnt want to get into it at this point. All I have to say about it is that imo we're not yet at a level that allows (or explains) us spending huge chunks of our budgets on players who are not yet the ready article.
On a different note, the fact that a club doesnt want to sell someone and as such came up with an overinflated valuation for them doesnt mean that the other side was 'forced' to pay that amount like some seem to be suggesting. It just means that the other club agrees with their valuation and as such decided to pay it.
aCe' I think there are all kinds of factors that figure into the price in lesser or greater measure. One certainly is the calibre of player but timing, needs, length of time remaining in the contract, wishes of the player, etc. all come into play. For instance, I don't for one minute think we would have come anywhere close to paying 35 million for Andy Carroll at another time in another context (nor do I think Newcastle would have asked for that amount). I think the club decided that they needed to replace Torres immediately (probably true, with only Ngog and Kuyt to back up Suarez, who was brand new to the league) and that massively inflated his price. Does that mean we should seriously consider Andy Carroll to be in the 35 million pound valuation bracket just because, under very unique circumstances, that's what we decided to pay for him? I don't think so. At least not in the simplistic sense of deciding that his performances should be those of a 35 million pound striker or we slag him off. To me, there's a lot of factors beyond the relative calibre of a player that factors into any transfer fee and so we can't just say "we paid X and therefore expect Y" in a straightforward way.
[1].gif)
his overall game mate. tis all.
