Eden Hazard

[cream]

You can't only look at the figures spent the last decade or so. You must look when the clubs spent it. Inflation and all that.

Man U spent £30m on Ferdinand for example. That probably means around £60m-£70m now.

If you look at the prices then it will have at least doubled since then. That means that Man U spent around £120m on Ferdinand and Rooney.

We spent £35m on Carroll. That is around half what Rooney cost United if you count inflation and you must do that.

****ing rubbish.

[cream]

Then you look at players like Anderson and Nani. Say that you would have to add at least 80% to the transfer fee Man U paid.

That means that they paid around £65m for them. We paid £20m for Torres. You would probably need to add 50% or 60% to that price.

In the end you will discover that they outspent us by a mile. We aren't even close.

And they also paid £7m for Hernandez, who is three times as good as Carroll which means he is really worth £105m...

[Arn]

And they also paid £7m for Hernandez, who is three times as good as Carroll which means he is really worth £105m...

Inflation of almost 1500% in 16 months Somehow I doubt that.

£7m 16 months ago is probably around £8m or £9m now.

How good a player is have nothing at all to do with it.

How much did you pay for a bottle of milk 10 years ago and how much do you pay now?

[Craig_H]

Bottles of milk and football transfer fees

[Baracus]

Inflation of almost 1500% in 16 months Somehow I doubt that.

£7m 16 months ago is probably around £8m or £9m now.

How good a player is have nothing at all to do with it.

How much did you pay for a bottle of milk 10 years ago and how much do you pay now?

They used to be free when I was in Primary School many Transfer windows ago. Now they don't even give them. Tories

[Gibbo]

If Carroll is worth 35m, trust me he is worth 50m. I see him everyweek and he is as good as Gerrard was at his age. I don't say that lightly.

Completely different player obviously, but I don't agree with this. Not saying Carroll isn't good but 1) If we ever get £50m for Carroll I will turn into a flying pig and be his replacement. 2) You could always tell Gerrard was going to be a superstar, I think the general feel from most people that I asked around the time that Gerrard first broke into the side knew that he would be excellent whereas many people, are undecided on Carroll, Liverpool fans and other fans alike.

[Rowan]

They used to be free when I was in Primary School many Transfer windows ago. Now they don't even give them. Tories

Understandable why they don't. Using Arn's inflation figures it must cost at least 6 grand a bottle.

[Arn]

Understandable why they don't. Using Arn's inflation figures it must cost at least 6 grand a bottle.

I only use the same figures as Tomkins for example use.

Clicky

Clicky

[Darkon]

IMO Tomkins method is far to simplistic to give any real meassure of a footballers equilant to a RPI. First of all you can't make a yearly comparison of footballers prices like he does, there are far to many factors concerning a footballer that does not apply to retail products. For example age, injuries, form, a clubs wealth (selling and buying) etc. Add to that, that no adjustment is made for taxes, mortages, interest and all other things in a RPI and you basically are left with taking percentages between to points in time.

His method is IMO to flawed to be used, and that is why you end up with strange figures. On top of it, it assumes that footballers are sold as a normal product, which is clearly not the case. It is more equilant to the arts market or collecters market that have very little to do with RPI.

[Neil Young]

I don't know about that. I think drawing comparisons between football transfer and art prices is useful - there are auctions, few buyers, etc., but there is also an essential difference.

A work of art is complete in itself. There may be additional value to be gained by adding it to a collection, making that collection complete, but in general each piece is distinct. It is bought for either or both of two reasons: to be appreciated in itself and to appreciate in value, as an 'investment' (more accurately as an alternative to savings).

A footballer is a capital investment, he is to be 'used'. As a result you can look at football transfers as having parallels with non-consumer markets - commodities, capital equipment, etc.

Another essential difference is that works of art or collectibles (and plenty of other products too) don't have a preference for who buys them, where they end up. That's fundamentally different in football. You only have to look at Phil 'Messiah' Jones for evidence of how that can change things. So you also have to look at parallels within specific sectors of the employment market, most obviously entertainment.

Yet even here there's a difference: in football the seller is the current club, the buyer the future club and the product is the player whereas in entertainment the product is also the seller.

[Darkon]

Agreed it is far from a perfect comparison as well, although better than retail IMO. Perhaps looking at it like a company does investing in a machine is a good idea

I'd venture so far to say that it doesn't resemble another market to close enough a degree for a direct use of methods, which is why I essentially don't like Tomkins way TPI. The problem is basically that you have a whole other set of price determinants than you do in a normal product market, be it retail, capital, equipment or what not. It's a market on it's own, where a set of factors that are hard to compare over time also plays a role. For example the hype of a player, like the hype of a painting is a factor. The Rick Parry factor of being able to negotiate or not plays a role and how you depreciate your product.

In short, it makes little sense and shouldn't be applied to Hazard or other footballers.

[Dirk07]

You can't only look at the figures spent the last decade or so. You must look when the clubs spent it. Inflation and all that.

Man U spent £30m on Ferdinand for example. That probably means around £60m-£70m now.

If you look at the prices then it will have at least doubled since then. That means that Man U spent around £120m on Ferdinand and Rooney.

We spent £35m on Carroll. That is around half what Rooney cost United if you count inflation and you must do that.

I agree with your method but your figures are a bit off, inflation i'm guessing has averaged 3.5% since rooney and ferdinand signed and if we use this in compound form we get a figure of around £75m for the pair

[fred_plasticine]

Agreed it is far from a perfect comparison as well, although better than retail IMO. Perhaps looking at it like a company does investing in a machine is a good idea

I'd venture so far to say that it doesn't resemble another market to close enough a degree for a direct use of methods, which is why I essentially don't like Tomkins way TPI. The problem is basically that you have a whole other set of price determinants than you do in a normal product market, be it retail, capital, equipment or what not. It's a market on it's own, where a set of factors that are hard to compare over time also plays a role. For example the hype of a player, like the hype of a painting is a factor. The Rick Parry factor of being able to negotiate or not plays a role and how you depreciate your product.

In short, it makes little sense and shouldn't be applied to Hazard or other footballers.

i agree it's far from perfect as does tomkins.
it's just a means to compare current and past purchases. it doesn't take into account how these prices were set and what influences their determination but that's a whole different game then anyway.
but it's a means to develop a feel for the question whether roy kean was a bargain in pure financial terms for the mancs or not. and i do believe it gives us a very good idea of the financial significance of past signings.

[Arn]

Agreed it is far from a perfect comparison as well, although better than retail IMO. Perhaps looking at it like a company does investing in a machine is a good idea

I'd venture so far to say that it doesn't resemble another market to close enough a degree for a direct use of methods, which is why I essentially don't like Tomkins way TPI. The problem is basically that you have a whole other set of price determinants than you do in a normal product market, be it retail, capital, equipment or what not. It's a market on it's own, where a set of factors that are hard to compare over time also plays a role. For example the hype of a player, like the hype of a painting is a factor. The Rick Parry factor of being able to negotiate or not plays a role and how you depreciate your product.

In short, it makes little sense and shouldn't be applied to Hazard or other footballers.

You must start somewhere. First you must look at how much for example £1 was worth year 2000 compared to now. That is figure you must use. After that you add or remove millions from the price for different reasons.

That is why I used the milk example.

The football transfer market is influenced by a lot of things but what influenced it most is the many more billionaire owners that is prepared to splash the cash big time. That means that the transfer market inflated more than almost any other market out there.

[Neil Young]

Agreed it is far from a perfect comparison as well, although better than retail IMO. Perhaps looking at it like a company does investing in a machine is a good idea

I'd venture so far to say that it doesn't resemble another market to close enough a degree for a direct use of methods, which is why I essentially don't like Tomkins way TPI. The problem is basically that you have a whole other set of price determinants than you do in a normal product market, be it retail, capital, equipment or what not. It's a market on it's own, where a set of factors that are hard to compare over time also plays a role. For example the hype of a player, like the hype of a painting is a factor. The Rick Parry factor of being able to negotiate or not plays a role and how you depreciate your product.

In short, it makes little sense and shouldn't be applied to Hazard or other footballers.

I agree it's certainly simplistic. But until someone works it out properly then we have to use whatever indicators are to hand.

Certainly though a large degree of caution is required as such a calculation is of very limited worth. Rather like Andy Carroll perhaps.

For a few weeks now I've been idly mulling over the issue of price determination within the football transfer market. I haven't got anywhere with it though because ultimately it's just not important at all.