That's true.
Adam Lallana
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
That's true.
You mean to prove that sometimes you are right as well.
That not always are you a "head in the sand, happy go lucky and believe in miracles" fan
I think its pretty obvious he isnt Andy Carroll....
So you were happy when we spent 20M on henderson??? Cos I bet you 9/10 of us thought we overpaid.... now look at him.
Id trust Rodgers judgement and ability to make him progress over yours.
We did overpay for Henderson. There's no disputing that.
Supporting a player is one thing, believing that a 26 year old average player will suddenly start performing out of his skin just because he suddenly is wearing red is another. That's my biggest issue regarding that transfer. An uninspired transfer of a player who was doomed to fail from the get go.
I had hopes about Carroll, fuck I had hopes about Adam as well because they were new to the premiership, but Downing was something else.
Did we see something in him that none of the other top teams in the premiership did and was it worth £20 million?
Anyway back to Lallana who isn't even close to Downing, but not worth £25 million. We'd be paying them Suarez/Torres money and they were younger than him.
Why?
Great answer.
How do you know he's not going to keep on improving?
That first sentence is idiotic.
It has relevance to the fee.
Young players improve and have a sell on value for up to six to seven years.
Aquilani yeah we overpaid on him.
Did anyone actually think that Carroll was going to be anymore than a flick on and header merchant.
He was what he was.
A donkey.
They're selling him far too much in that article though - you'd think we're signing Iniesta.
You're saying 21 year old Jordan Henderson was worth 16M or more when we bought him? That's stupid.
He was worth half that fee, and Sunderland took us for all we were worth. Just because Henderson came good doesn't make it any smarter a decision to pay anywhere near the amount we did.
You can't use hindsight to define an overpay, overpaying is defined solely on market value. I think you're confusing a player not being worth a transfer fee in the long run(Aquilani, Aspas) to paying more than a player is worth at a moment in time(Carroll, Downing, Henderson).
We paid the amount we did because he had potential.
The potential shone through and he's a very good player so no we didn't overpay.
And what do you mean you can't use hindsight?
If that was the case no team would sign a bad player ever.
And this market value bullshit is infuriating.
Arsenal are the team who have worked out best probably regards market value.
Where do they get the medals and trophies for that?
Shocking as it may sound I am inclined to agree.
He may be worth more than 17M to us, but not to anybody else.
Overpaying has nothing to do with investment, it's based on market value.
If you pay pay double the price for a tank of gas because you are running on empty, won't you have overpaid? You'll still get where you need to go, and be on time for that meeting you have, but you still paid more than the market value for your fuel. And you're going to pissed off at the station for taking advantage of your situation, and yourself for not being smarter. The return of that tank of gas was exactly what it would've been at market value, but you paid double what you should have for it.
I'm not saying Hendo was a bad purchase in the long run, but we should've had him for half that fee. It was absolutely an overpay.
If you pay double the price of a tank of PETROL, knowing that it will be worth twice that when you sell it on its a good price and a good investment.
We paid the amount we did because we were idiots obsessed with his potential. That's a level of potential that hasn't even been achieved yet, mind. We've seen flashes, but the consistency is still lacking. Henderson is a 15-20M player now, no more. He might be worth more to us because we would have to replace him, but he's not worth more than that figure to any other club that may be interested. And if we were offered 25M, we would bite their hand off and sell him.
What the hell do you mean you can't use hindsight, otherwise teams would never sign bad players? I am utterly lost. Players fail for a variety of reasons, the transfer fee paid is not one of them. Pressure resulting for a transfer fee? Maybe.
Arsenal don't buy the players they need, that has absolutely nothing to do with market value. They're content to buy a dozen playmakers, without a single decent holding midfielder or striker coming in. That's why they keep coming short, not because of their perception of market value. They have a rating of market value that is spot on, they just refuse to spend money in the places they need to.
It is equally possible to overpay for a good player, as it is for a bad one. A good player who you paid over the odds for will be a better long term investment, but will be less good of an investment because you paid more than you had to up front.
It's a good investment, but you still paid double what you could have, right? That's the definition of overpaying. Paying more than what it's worth. Plus, that's another 50% profit you missed out on 😉.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying Henderson was a bad investment, but he definitely could have been a better one if we didn't overpay for him up front. And therein lies the issue, we have a tendency to overpay for players the people in charge of transfers like by a big margin.
You're losing me a wee bit here.
My point is that of course you can use hindsight to see if a player meets it's market value as you call it.
You certainly can't use foresight can you or no one would make a mistake in the transfer market ever.
£16m was about par for him. He was young, English, highly rated. That's basically what those dudes cost. There's never any bargains if you go shopping in that market. You just have to hope they fulfill their potential and then over 10 or 12 years' service they look like great deals. The majority of deals like that work out well.
Henderson IMO never looked like a bad transfer, it just looked uninspired, especially combined with the awful deals for Carroll and Downing. But I remember saying to loads of people at the time that, although it was a bit of a dull signing, if all your transfers were only as good value as Henderson then you wouldn't be doing half bad.
As usual, I've been proved right.😀
If value is only determined at the point of purchase, which I think is what you're arguing, how do you go about accounting for potential?
Henderson wasn't a 16M player when we signed him, no, but then Rooney wasn't a 25M player when United signed him. They paid that fee for the player they hoped he'd become rather than the player he was at the time.
As it happens, I felt we did overpay for Henderson at the time even accounting for potential (that's just the cost of doing business in the Premiership, which I think brings us back to your original point) but I think there are problems with your overall argument.
Henderson wasn't a 16M player when we signed him, no, but then Rooney wasn't a 25M player when United signed him. They paid that fee for the player they hoped he'd become rather than the player he was at the time.
As it happens, I felt we did overpay for Henderson at the time even accounting for potential (that's just the cost of doing business in the Premiership, which I think brings us back to your original point) but I think there are problems with your overall argument.
- Status
Similar threads
