Transfer fees, football really has lost the run of itself.

NIMAN

OK, so we have had some huge fees in recent years, the likes of Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar, Suarez, Torres etc. But for me, these guys at their peak are in a different class to most, and are potential game changers and trophy winners.

However, some of the fees getting thrown around in more recent times eg John Stones, don't seem to be producing good value. But it appears that clubs are able to afford the risk of buying an average player.

Recently we are hearing that Gylfi Sigurdsson is worth ?25m, as is Michael Keane, Lukaku ?60m, Kyle Walker ?45m, Barkley ?40m.

The mind boggles. None of these guys are going to win you anything.

Arghus

I hope to live to see the day that someone is sold for a billion. That'd be class.

rwbug

So - Gabriel Jesus at 27million - start a thread on what a bargain some players are compared to Bale, Neymar, Suarez, Torres etc

or just move with the times.

As a City fan I honestly believe Stones has shown enough this season that he will be a huge star in the future. United fans will think the same of Pogba, ie crap this year but has shown enough to be hopeful he can be a star in the future.

~Rebel~

NIMAN wrote: »

OK, so we have had some huge fees in recent years, the likes of Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar, Suarez, Torres etc. But for me, these guys at their peak are in a different class to most, and are potential game changers and trophy winners.

However, some of the fees getting thrown around in more recent times eg John Stones, don't seem to be producing good value. But it appears that clubs are able to afford the risk of buying an average player.

Recently we are hearing that Gylfi Sigurdsson is worth ?25m, as is Michael Keane, Lukaku ?60m, Kyle Walker ?45m, Barkley ?40m.

The mind boggles. None of these guys are going to win you anything.

A lot of this actually relates to the discussion from a few days ago in the "Premier League Trying To Fight Streaming" thread.

For all practical intents and purposes, the figures have long since stopped meaning anything in and of themselves. For probably the past 15 to 20 years, it's better to just look at figures as a % of income. Clubs have fairly consistently been spending similar %'s of their income on players and wages. As the money comes in, the numbers go up, but the % ratio stays the same.

It's not an accurate indicator of player value - all Lukaku being worth 60+ million really means, at the end of the day, is that people are probably paying too much for their TV subscriptions.

Mokuba

NIMAN wrote: »

OK, so we have had some huge fees in recent years, the likes of Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar, Suarez, Torres etc. But for me, these guys at their peak are in a different class to most, and are potential game changers and trophy winners.

However, some of the fees getting thrown around in more recent times eg John Stones, don't seem to be producing good value. But it appears that clubs are able to afford the risk of buying an average player.

Recently we are hearing that Gylfi Sigurdsson is worth ?25m, as is Michael Keane, Lukaku ?60m, Kyle Walker ?45m, Barkley ?40m.

The mind boggles. None of these guys are going to win you anything.

Richer owners, bigger TV deals, lack of proven and more importantly available talent = bigger transfer fees.

pudzey101

The likes of pogba and stones are a laughing stock ... as rwbug put above stones MIGHT well develop into a top CB, But look at the likes of Arsenals Rob Holding ... 2 million and already solid and proven .

Thierry Henry - 11million - One of the best PL strikers to be seen , some 18 year old guy called Mbappe "compared" to the next henry is 110 million .

Money has truly ruined football for me , lots of clubs nowadays just trying to "buy" trophies .

Its actually going to be funny to watch the premier league in 10 years, rather than enjoy it .

NIMAN

If Lukaku goes for 40mill+, football is dead to me.

Everytime I watch him, I can't see what he is supposed to be good at.

Subcomandante Marcos

NIMAN wrote: »

If Lukaku goes for 40mill+, football is dead to me.

Everytime I watch him, I can't see what he is supposed to be good at.

Scoring goals. He's very good at scoring goals.

RobertKK

The thing with Pogba is one can notice a big difference when he plays compares to when he doesn't plays, his problem is the people in front of him have not converted enough of the chances he created. He is a game changer as he has very positive play.
I think his huge fee will look cheap in the future, I remember when United paid £30 million for Rio Ferdinand, huge money back then but one of the greatest defenders in PL history.
United are not buying trophies, they make this money from football, it is not like they have such rich backers pumping money into the club. So United can justify paying the price needed to get a player, once the player is agreeable to the move.
I see nothing wrong using money generated from the game being used to pay a world record fee.
United make so much money from the game itself that United shareholders take money out of the club via share dividend.

Osmosis Jones

This is literally said every year.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The fee's are just a case of a dime ain't worth a nickle no more.

60 million now is like 15 million was in 2000 and certain teams have to pay a premium for their players because the seller knows how much money they have to spend.


Most big teams buy trophies now.Very rarely do you see a team organically develope with only a small bit of money being spent.Just throw money at it is the way to success these days.

DeanAustin

pudzey101 wrote: »

The likes of pogba and stones are a laughing stock ... as rwbug put above stones MIGHT well develop into a top CB, But look at the likes of Arsenals Rob Holding ... 2 million and already solid and proven .

Thierry Henry - 11million - One of the best PL strikers to be seen , some 18 year old guy called Mbappe "compared" to the next henry is 110 million .

Money has truly ruined football for me , lots of clubs nowadays just trying to "buy" trophies .

Its actually going to be funny to watch the premier league in 10 years, rather than enjoy it .

Liam Brady raised a great point on Dunphy's podcast a few weeks back. He was saying that there is no real emphasis on managers to coach players anymore. If a player doesn't do it in the first few months, he's pretty much finished at a top club and a replacement is bought. That culture is making it very difficult for players to develop.

So are managers to blame? A bit but they are under such intense pressure to get instant results, you can see why they are doing what they're doing. Have a bad spell and the media are on your back and some clowns hire a plane with a banner to fly over the stadium. So that culture naturally drives prices up and limits opportunities.

Then you have fans who want instant results and live in a world where everything is either "world class" or "rubbish". No player is given a chance to settle. Look at your post. "Stones and Pogba are laughing stocks"? That's just hyperbole. They're two of the brightest talents in the English game. The fees paid for them were inflated but that's not their fault. It's because we're all (media, managers, chairmen, fans) feeding the monster and driving up transfer fees and limiting player development.

KaiserGunner

The transfer fees last summer especially were crazy and you can only imagine them being even higher this summer. What is concerning though is these "super agents" taking extortionate money out of the game. Didn't Pogbas agent pocket £41m from that deal? And I also read that Firminho agent pocketed about 75% of the total transfer fee when he moved to Liverpool. That is just wrong imo.

Harry Palmr

Nothing new about this - at the dawn of the century Serie A sides were forking out incredible sums (when adjusted for football inflation rather than the RPI).

As for now, sure they are crazy and it's only sustainable with the global TV money but no one can really stop it or would want to - even relegated sides can cash in if they are canny as they readjust for the Championship. The real anger should be aimed that those who are creaming off vast sums in the middle.

Chardee MacDennis

DeanAustin wrote: »

Liam Brady raised a great point on Dunphy's podcast a few weeks back. He was saying that there is no real emphasis on managers to coach players anymore. If a player doesn't do it in the first few months, he's pretty much finished at a top club and a replacement is bought. That culture is making it very difficult for players to develop.

I dont think that's true across the board, look at Klopp for example - but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Richard Hillman

This summer is going to be obscene.

United and City are reportedly ready to spend 150m each.

Lukaku will go for a very large fee and Everton will replace him.

Costa and Hazard will probably leave Chelsea for 60+ million each.

Chelsea will spend big replacing them.

Arsenal will spend big to justify keeping Wenger.

Barcelona need a squad overhaul.

Then there is there big one. Real Madrid are finished their transfer ban and it's election year. At least 2 galacticos will be signing.

The PSG owners will be pissed after what happened in Barcelona.

Then there is China and possibly even a rejuvenation of AC Milan.


A great time to be a football agent or Sky Sports News reporter.

DeanAustin

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

I dont think that's true across the board, look at Klopp for example - but it is the exception rather than the rule.

I hate Liverpool but I think Klopp is great and the best thing about the club.

However, I've seen murmurings of discontent on the Liverpool thread when they looked like they may not get CL. Nothing major but the undercurrent is there. Likewise Didi Hamann has been having a go regularly in the media.

If Liverpool fail to get CL tomorrow, which I don't think will happen, watch the knee jerking around here. Thing is, Liverpool have a low recent net spend on transfers and have the 5th biggest wage bill in the league. Factor into the equation that Spurs are punching well above their financial weight and Klopp is doing very well to have them in 4th. He also seems to be willing to give youth a chance.

I'd also put Pochettino out there as an example of a manager doing a phenomenal job in terms of developing players.

That said, if either has a bad season or a very bad run of 9-10 games and the knives will be out.

Lord TSC

Richard Hillman wrote: »

United and City are reportedly ready to spend 150m each.

I'd put money on us spending more than that tbh. If we don't break the 200m mark, I'd be surprised...

NIMAN

150mill each, sure that would hardly buy 2 or 3 big names.

There will be ferocious spending this year, as these so-called genius managers buy their way to success. The days of a manager being canny and spending little, spotting talent, developing players etc is dead.

~Rebel~

KaiserGunner wrote: »

The transfer fees last summer especially were crazy and you can only imagine them being even higher this summer. What is concerning though is these "super agents" taking extortionate money out of the game. Didn't Pogbas agent pocket ?41m from that deal? And I also read that Firminho agent pocketed about 75% of the total transfer fee when he moved to Liverpool. That is just wrong imo.

Nah, that was a totally different thing altogether. it wasn't the agent that made the money - Hoffenheim are owned by Dietmar Hopp, a tech billionaire who brought Hoffenheim to where they are by throwing his own money at it. So for some players they buy, he personally owns the rights to a % of the player, while the club owns the rest. He owned the majority of Firmino's contract (through his other company Transfair), so when Firmino was sold, he got the % of the fee that he owned.

upandcumming

Can't see John Stones doing anything still... despite what the media say.

blueser

Real Madrid have apparently had a £103m bid for Mbappe turned down by Monaco. Seriously; WTF? I thought the fee for Stones was mad (and I'm a City fan), and Pogba's was absolutely ludicrous. But over £100m for an 18 year old? Farcical. I fully appreciate that you're paying for potential in future seasons, but how long has Mbappe been turning in the level of performances he's doing now; a year? 18 months? It's crazy, the fees that are being thrown around these days.

Chesty08

blueser wrote: »

Real Madrid have apparently had a £103m bid for Mbappe turned down by Monaco. Seriously; WTF? I thought the fee for Stones was mad (and I'm a City fan), and Pogba's was absolutely ludicrous. But over £100m for an 18 year old? Farcical. I fully appreciate that you're paying for potential in future seasons, but how long has Mbappe been turning in the level of performances he's doing now; a year? 18 months? It's crazy, the fees that are being thrown around these days.

I think you are missing the whole concept of buying a player in today's market.

For example, Juventus paid £32.5million (€38 million) for Buffon in 2001. That was 16 years ago! That equates to £2million a year. All things considered this has been extremely huge value, some might say a bargain.

However at the time, that money for a GK and it brought the reactions of Football is Broken, gone mad etc etc etc...

Similar example is Ferdinand. At any point in their careers they could easily have been sold for the half the transfer fee paid.

That £80million/£100 price tag is equivalent to the £30million price tag 16 years ago due to prize money, TV deals etc... in this day and age.

Dirty Dingus McGee

blueser wrote: »

Real Madrid have apparently had a £103m bid for Mbappe turned down by Monaco. Seriously; WTF? I thought the fee for Stones was mad (and I'm a City fan), and Pogba's was absolutely ludicrous. But over £100m for an 18 year old? Farcical. I fully appreciate that you're paying for potential in future seasons, but how long has Mbappe been turning in the level of performances he's doing now; a year? 18 months? It's crazy, the fees that are being thrown around these days.

Over £100 million for an 18 year old of his level is reasonable enough and it represents better value than the same price for a 23 year old.Monaco should be looking for closer to £150 million considering Pogba's price as forwards are always more costly than midfielders.Mbappe looks like he;s going to be a great great player.

If someone tries to buy Donnaruma from AC Milan they should be looking for well over £100 million as if someone were to buy him they get a top level goalie for 20 years and 5 million a year is decent enough value for a top level player.

When the seller knows how much money the buyer has they are perectly right to demand as much money as they think the buyer can pay, the likes of Real Madrid and Man Utd have money to burn so the prices for them should be jacked up by the selling clubs.

lawred2

Lol at not knowing what Lukaku does.

DeanAustin

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Over £100 million for an 18 year old of his level is reasonable enough and it represents better value than the same price for a 23 year old.Monaco should be looking for closer to £150 million considering Pogba's price as forwards are always more costly than midfielders.Mbappe looks like he;s going to be a great great player.

If someone tries to buy Donnaruma from AC Milan they should be looking for well over £100 million as if someone were to buy him they get a top level goalie for 20 years and 5 million a year is decent enough value for a top level player.

When the seller knows how much money the buyer has they are perectly right to demand as much money as they think the buyer can pay, the likes of Real Madrid and Man Utd have money to burn so the prices for them should be jacked up by the selling clubs.

I think the point is that at 18, it's still debatable whether he'll fulfill the obvious potential. Very few, if any, players are the finished article at 18 and that doesn't always mean that the player will improve. Look at people like Saviola or even an Aaron Lennon who looked like they'd be world beaters at 18 but who never went on to those heights. Arguably, Sterling will be another example. That's why over 100 million for an 18 year old is riskier than for a 23 year old who has probably being doing it for 4-5 years.

Haven't seen much of Mbappe but the French league is not comparable to Spain, England or Germany. He may have had a great CL season but, personally, I wouldn't be spunking 100 mill of my money on an 18 year old from a second tier league who has had a good CL campaign.

Dirty Dingus McGee

DeanAustin wrote: »

I think the point is that at 18, it's still debatable whether he'll fulfill the obvious potential. Very few, if any, players are the finished article at 18 and that doesn't always mean that the player will improve. Look at people like Saviola or even an Aaron Lennon who looked like they'd be world beaters at 18 but who never went on to those heights. Arguably, Sterling will be another example. That's why over 100 million for an 18 year old is riskier than for a 23 year old who has probably being doing it for 4-5 years.

Haven't seen much of Mbappe but the French league is not comparable to Spain, England or Germany. He may have had a great CL season but, personally, I wouldn't be spunking 100 mill of my money on an 18 year old from a second tier league who has had a good CL campaign.

Saviola and Lennon as good as they were at a young age never looked close to M'Bappe's level and Sterling will probably turn out to be a bargain at the price city got him for, he was good this season and I'd imagine will only get better as time goes on.Somebody going to pay a ridiculous sum for him and you don't want to be the club that is too slow to react because and end up losing out on getting him.

ERG89

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Saviola and Lennon as good as they were at a young age never looked close to M'Bappe's level and Sterling will probably turn out to be a bargain at the price city got him for, he was good this season and I'd imagine will only get better as time goes on.Somebody going to pay a ridiculous sum for him and you don't want to be the club that is too slow to react because and end up losing out on getting him.

Thing with Sterling is that he is still bad at what he was bad at 3 years ago. I think Pep has improved Sane more despite it being his first season & if one credits Guardiola for that.
Mbappe's main strength is he looks like an old head on young shoulders. He performed well against City, Dortmund & even Juve. Think he scored in 5 of those 6 games. It's kinda crazy suggesting the price 6 months ago but if Liverpool or Milan bought him I'd not be crying (more likely to be dreaming).
I'd much rather pay that fee than buy Lukaku or Kane for £80m or whatever asked.

RossieMan

Richard Hillman wrote: »

This summer is going to be obscene.

United and City are reportedly ready to spend 150m each.

Lukaku will go for a very large fee and Everton will replace him.

Costa and Hazard will probably leave Chelsea for 60+ million each.

Chelsea will spend big replacing them.

Arsenal will spend big to justify keeping Wenger.

Barcelona need a squad overhaul.

Then there is there big one. Real Madrid are finished their transfer ban and it's election year. At least 2 galacticos will be signing.

The PSG owners will be pissed after what happened in Barcelona.

Then there is China and possibly even a rejuvenation of AC Milan.


A great time to be a football agent or Sky Sports News reporter.

barcelona needing an overhaul?

You have no idea of football do you?

Guy:Incognito

pudzey101 wrote: »

The likes of pogba and stones are a laughing stock ... as rwbug put above stones MIGHT well develop into a top CB, But look at the likes of Arsenals Rob Holding ... 2 million and already solid and proven .

Thierry Henry - 11million - One of the best PL strikers to be seen , some 18 year old guy called Mbappe "compared" to the next henry is 110 million .

Money has truly ruined football for me , lots of clubs nowadays just trying to "buy" trophies .

Its actually going to be funny to watch the premier league in 10 years, rather than enjoy it .

Mbappe was 6 months old when Henry went for £11m. The world is a much different place thanow it was then.

Ulysses Gaze

DeanAustin wrote: »

Liam Brady raised a great point on Dunphy's podcast a few weeks back. He was saying that there is no real emphasis on managers to coach players anymore. If a player doesn't do it in the first few months, he's pretty much finished at a top club and a replacement is bought. That culture is making it very difficult for players to develop.

So are managers to blame? A bit but they are under such intense pressure to get instant results, you can see why they are doing what they're doing. Have a bad spell and the media are on your back and some clowns hire a plane with a banner to fly over the stadium. So that culture naturally drives prices up and limits opportunities.

Then you have fans who want instant results and live in a world where everything is either "world class" or "rubbish". No player is given a chance to settle. Look at your post. "Stones and Pogba are laughing stocks"? That's just hyperbole. They're two of the brightest talents in the English game. The fees paid for them were inflated but that's not their fault. It's because we're all (media, managers, chairmen, fans) feeding the monster and driving up transfer fees and limiting player development.

I remember Brady said the same thing when Chelsea played Atletico Madrid in the Champions League a few years back.

He said that if Mourinho was such a great coach, he should be able to get players to play well and not feel the need to spend hundreds of millions every year. If Mourinho is such a great coach, why have Utd not done better in the league this season? How much does he need to spend? Another £300 million?

I'd say the same for Guardiola. One of the criticisms of the Man City squad is that it is "aging". Look at the Juventus squad that is in the Champions League final. Hardly a bunch of spring chickens.

Again if Guardiola is the second coming as a coach, as some say, where does coaching players come into this?

On the other side, Antonio Conte has proven that a good coach does not need to spend hundreds of millions on players when he arrives at a club to win things. And get players playing to their potential. Victor Moses is a good example here.

bucketybuck

ERG89 wrote: »

I'd much rather pay that fee than buy Lukaku or Kane for ?80m or whatever asked.

You would rather pay 100m for an 18 year old with 16 senior league goals than 80m for a 23 year old who has 20+ league goals 3 seasons straight?

Will you have any money left for next seasons flavour of the month?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I remember Brady said the same thing when Chelsea played Atletico Madrid in the Champions League a few years back.

He said that if Mourinho was such a great coach, he should be able to get players to play well and not feel the need to spend hundreds of millions every year. If Mourinho is such a great coach, why have Utd not done better in the league this season? How much does he need to spend? Another £300 million?

I'd say the same for Guardiola. One of the criticisms of the Man City squad is that it is "aging". Look at the Juventus squad that is in the Champions League final. Hardly a bunch of spring chickens.

Again if Guardiola is the second coming as a coach, as some say, where does coaching players come into this?

On the other side, Antonio Conte has proven that a good coach does not need to spend hundreds of millions on players when he arrives at a club to win things. And get players playing to their potential. Victor Moses is a good example here.

Mourinho won the champions league and UEFA cup with a Porto team that didn't have a huge amount of money spent on it.

He improved Inter's performances in Europe dramatically and won a champions league with them without much net spend.

He is one of the few modern managers who's coaching shouldn't be questioned.

Guy:Incognito

lawred2 wrote: »

Lol at not knowing what Lukaku does.

I was going to say bus driver. Never heard of the guy .

Ulysses Gaze

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Mourinho won the champions league and UEFA cup with a Porto team that didn't have a huge amount of money spent on it.

He improved Inter's performances in Europe dramatically and won a champions league with them without much net spend.

He is one of the few modern managers who's coaching shouldn't be questioned.

You're talking over 8-10 years ago now.....

There is also a difference between managing and coaching.

Dirty Dingus McGee

RossieMan wrote: »

barcelona needing an overhaul?

You have no idea of football do you?

Messi has been carrying them this year.

They need to find a replacement for an aging Iniesta and probably another midfield player on top of that, a new right back and a new centre back.

blueser

DeanAustin wrote: »

I think the point is that at 18, it's still debatable whether he'll fulfill the obvious potential. Very few, if any, players are the finished article at 18 and that doesn't always mean that the player will improve. Look at people like Saviola or even an Aaron Lennon who looked like they'd be world beaters at 18 but who never went on to those heights. Arguably, Sterling will be another example. That's why over 100 million for an 18 year old is riskier than for a 23 year old who has probably being doing it for 4-5 years.

Haven't seen much of Mbappe but the French league is not comparable to Spain, England or Germany. He may have had a great CL season but, personally, I wouldn't be spunking 100 mill of my money on an 18 year old from a second tier league who has had a good CL campaign.

Spot on. There's no guarantee that Mbappe, promising and exciting though he undoubtedly is, will be the next Messi or Ronaldo. Potential does not always translate into the finished product. As you said, if a player has been consistently doing the business for 4/5/6 years, then yeah. As much as any modern day transfer fee can be justified, then it can in that scenario. But at 18? Not for me.

Harry Palmr

Is Mbappe twice the player/potential of Martial? It's almost impossible to know, the former has yet to make a move outside what he knows and the latter has arguably had his development path disrupted by the malfunctioning side he is part of.

DeanAustin

blueser wrote: »

Spot on. There's no guarantee that Mbappe, promising and exciting though he undoubtedly is, will be the next Messi or Ronaldo. Potential does not always translate into the finished product. As you said, if a player has been consistently doing the business for 4/5/6 years, then yeah. As much as any modern day transfer fee can be justified, then it can in that scenario. But at 18? Not for me.

Another point, ability aside, is attitude. The lad is 18. No matter how mature he is, he has a lot of growing up to do and will have to maintain a very disciplined life to hit his potential. He'll have to do it in an environment where he'll have a lot of distractions and endless money to indulge those distractions.

At least with a 23 year old, you're pretty sure they've come through that the right way. You can't bank on that with an 18 year old.

Not saying that in time he won't be worth it. I just think it's a risky signing for 100 million +.

Ulysses Gaze

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Is Mbappe twice the player/potential of Martial? It's almost impossible to know, the former has yet to make a move outside what he knows and the latter has arguably had his development path disrupted by the malfunctioning side he is part of.

Real Madrid would be the wrong club for him to go to. Particularly next season when he is still a kid and developing his game. It is a goldfish bowl and a circus.

Sure knowing Real, they could win the League today, lose the Champions League final and Zidane could be sacked.

He'd be better staying at Monaco until he's 21/22.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

You're talking over 8-10 years ago now.....

There is also a difference between managing and coaching.

You could clearly see with Porto,Inter and Chelsea in his first spell how well drilled his teams were.Similar to Conte with Juve and his Chelsea team at the moment.

blueser

DeanAustin wrote: »

Another point, ability aside, is attitude. The lad is 18. No matter how mature he is, he has a lot of growing up to do and will have to maintain a very disciplined life to hit his potential. He'll have to do it in an environment where he'll have a lot of distractions and endless money to indulge those distractions.

At least with a 23 year old, you're pretty sure they've come through that the right way. You can't bank on that with an 18 year old.

Not saying that in time he won't be worth it. I just think it's a risky signing for 100 million +.

We had that with Balotelli. The guy obviously had tremendous ability, but you never knew what Mario was going to turn up. The guy who bossed utd in the cup s/f and swung THAT QPR game, or the headless chicken who got himself sent off at the Emirates in the run in in 2012. Talk about frustrating.

ERG89

bucketybuck wrote: »

You would rather pay 100m for an 18 year old with 16 senior league goals than 80m for a 23 year old who has 20+ league goals 3 seasons straight?

Will you have any money left for next seasons flavour of the month?

He has won a league title already & was one of the best players in the knockout phase of champions league I don't think either of those 2 have done the former unless Lukaku looked at Chelsea win one. I can't think of many 18 year olds that can say that. It'd be physically impossible for him to score 20 goals 3 years in a row unless he was a starter since he was 15.....
I do think he's a higher potential than those 2, as does Real Madrid & everyone else after him.

JaMarcusHustle

It's been announced today that Madrid have agreed a €45m fee for a 16 year old who hasn't made a senior appearance for his team yet. That, to me, is pretty absurd.

764dak

ERG89 wrote: »

bucketybuck wrote: »

You would rather pay 100m for an 18 year old with 16 senior league goals than 80m for a 23 year old who has 20+ league goals 3 seasons straight?

Will you have any money left for next seasons flavour of the month?

He has won a league title already & was one of the best players in the knockout phase of champions league I don't think either of those 2 have done the former unless Lukaku looked at Chelsea win one. I can't think of many 18 year olds that can say that. It'd be physically impossible for him to score 20 goals 3 years in a row unless he was a starter since he was 15.....
I do think he's a higher potential than those 2, as does Real Madrid & everyone else after him.

Lukaku won the Belgian League in 2010 and was the league's official top scorer. He turned 17 the month the season ended.

Giggsy11

blueser wrote: »

We had that with Balotelli. The guy obviously had tremendous ability, but you never knew what Mario was going to turn up. The guy who bossed utd in the cup s/f and swung THAT QPR game, or the headless chicken who got himself sent off at the Emirates in the run in in 2012. Talk about frustrating.

Comparing with Balotelli? Everyone knew Balotelli was a nut case, Mbappe is very matured and grounded player. Comparing their mentality is like comparing Messi with Sinclair in ability.

50 Million for Stones or 100 Million for Mbappe? Mbappe easily.

Giggsy11

Chesty08 wrote: »

I think you are missing the whole concept of buying a player in today's market.

For example, Juventus paid £32.5million (€38 million) for Buffon in 2001. That was 16 years ago! That equates to £2million a year. All things considered this has been extremely huge value, some might say a bargain.

However at the time, that money for a GK and it brought the reactions of Football is Broken, gone mad etc etc etc...

Similar example is Ferdinand. At any point in their careers they could easily have been sold for the half the transfer fee paid.

That £80million/£100 price tag is equivalent to the £30million price tag 16 years ago due to prize money, TV deals etc... in this day and age.

Exactly. It all about long term planning and how highly they rate the player. Using the examples like you did, ManUtd paid around 27 Million for a teenager in 2004 and it's a money superbly spent considering number of years he has spent at Manutd and kind of player he was.

raze_them_all_

pudzey101 wrote: »

The likes of pogba and stones are a laughing stock ... as rwbug put above stones MIGHT well develop into a top CB, But look at the likes of Arsenals Rob Holding ... 2 million and already solid and proven .

Thierry Henry - 11million - One of the best PL strikers to be seen , some 18 year old guy called Mbappe "compared" to the next henry is 110 million .

Money has truly ruined football for me , lots of clubs nowadays just trying to "buy" trophies .

Its actually going to be funny to watch the premier league in 10 years, rather than enjoy it .

Just on this Henry was wasting away on the wing before arsenal. Alsi it was what 20 years ago??

NIMAN

Troy Deeney, £35mill

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/transfer-watford-brom-troy-deeney-13093652

I'll say no more.

PhilipsR

NIMAN wrote: »

Troy Deeney, £35mill

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/transfer-watford-brom-troy-deeney-13093652

I'll say no more.

I actually don't see the issue with this type of thing.

His goals are pivotal to Watford staying up, which is worth 100m to them per year. When you assess it that way, the valuation of 35m isn't all that nuts.

Dirty Dingus McGee

PhilipsR wrote: »

I actually don't see the issue with this type of thing.

His goals are pivotal to Watford staying up, which is worth 100m to them per year. When you assess it that way, the valuation of 35m isn't all that nuts.

You could replace him for an awful lot less than £35 million.If Watford can get it fair play but no way would it be good value to pay that sort of money for him.

He's a bog standard lower level premier league player and that's the most he'll ever be.

23 goals (9 of which were penalties) in 75 premier league games is not that great a record.