Brendan Rodgers

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

Ok, but I don't think FSG should relax that limit to make one of their employees feel better.

So he's frustrated, I can understand that and I think we all feel a bit the same. That's it really. The valuation is the valuation. If he's thought to be worth more to the club than the club's valuation has it then the club's valuation is too low. But that's a definition of the valuation - it's a judgment about how much he'd be worth to us.

Ultimately the idea he's worth more than he's worth is a contradiction in terms.

And that's why this discussion is going round in circles.

But how can none football people like FSG place a valuation? When Tottenham and Chelsea both bid higher and Rodgers feels the player is key or at least you'd believe that based on the figures being thrown around and his statements. You simply can't have rigid valuations in a market that you have no experience in, that's bad business. If they've been advised, well who by? If it was not Rodgers/Scouts then I'd be interested to know where this 'valuation' has came from.

[EwarWoo]

If it was not Rodgers/Scouts then I'd be interested to know where this 'valuation' has came from.

And if it was Rogers / Scouts (likely) but Rogers wanted to go higher anyway to get his man?

[dom9]

Ok, but I don't think FSG should relax that limit to make one of their employees feel better.

So he's frustrated, I can understand that and I think we all feel a bit the same. That's it really. The valuation is the valuation. If he's thought to be worth more to the club than the club's valuation has it then the club's valuation is too low. But that's a definition of the valuation - it's a judgment about how much he'd be worth to us.

Ultimately the idea he's worth more than he's worth is a contradiction in terms.

And that's why this discussion is going round in circles.

[MrMichael]

But how can none football people like FSG place a valuation? When Tottenham and Chelsea both bid higher and Rodgers feels the player is key or at least you'd believe that based on the figures being thrown around and his statements. You simply can't have rigid valuations in a market that you have no experience in, that's bad business. If they've been advised, well who by? If it was not Rodgers/Scouts then I'd be interested to know where this 'valuation' has came from.

It is common knowledge we have a "transfer committee". I strongly suspect FSG set the overall transfer budget and financial targets after discussion with them, but there is no way they do the individual valuations of specific players. These guys are not stupid.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

And if it was Rogers / Scouts (likely) but Rogers wanted to go higher anyway to get his man?

You say likely, based on what? From the quoted I've read the only thing I'd take a stab at is that the owners were unwilling to spend that bit extra. He said something along the lines of its the owners who run the club and they have the last say.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

It is common knowledge we have a "transfer committee". I strongly suspect FSG set the overall transfer budget and financial targets after discussion with them, but there is no way they do the individual valuations of specific players. These guys are not stupid.

I'd hope that it was a committee decision but as I've said from the quotes I read it made me lean towards the owners, I know that's guess work but so it what you or anyone else is saying at the moment. If it was a committee decision I'd expect us to have further targets who they think are better valued and we can move onto almost immediately.

[EwarWoo]

You say likely, based on what? From the quoted I've read the only thing I'd take a stab at is that the owners were unwilling to spend that bit extra. He said something along the lines of its the owners who run the club and they have the last say.

Because there'd be no point appointing a committee then ignoring them, it would be a waste of money. Hence likely.

Or is it more likely they pulled a figure out of their arse and ignored the committee they appointed when the bidding went above that?

Apply a pinch of common sense with the hysterical emotions.

[EwarWoo]

but so it what you or anyone else is saying at the moment.

However its an educated guess based on known facts not just an over dramatic reaction.

[Neil Young]

But how can none football people like FSG place a valuation? When Tottenham and Chelsea both bid higher and Rodgers feels the player is key or at least you'd believe that based on the figures being thrown around and his statements. You simply can't have rigid valuations in a market that you have no experience in, that's bad business. If they've been advised, well who by? If it was not Rodgers/Scouts then I'd be interested to know where this 'valuation' has came from.

That's why I asked that very question yesterday about where FSG are getting their valuation from.

We're both making an assumption - mine is that 'football people' (presumably Rodgers and the committee, but not not necessarily just them) inform the valuation. Yours is that they don't. I think yours is highly improbable.

This approach to purchasing has taken over the corporate world in the last fifteen years - maybe longer outside the UK. It's standard practice.

Having said that, there may be some kind of metrics being used that reduce the impact of the non-financial experts - in our case, Rodgers, the committee, etc. That can go too far, I'd agree. But then so can any system. It's a mixture of art and science.

[Kenneth]

Going by the tibits in the media and taking just the headline figures, we offered £27m, Spurs £30m and Chelsea £32m for Willian. That's an increase of £5m in the space of 24 hours.

Five *million* pounds. Call it £100,000 a week and that's a years wages for two players on £50K p/w (ish).

Can we afford to just throw that little bit extra at a deal, or are we right to have a ceiling figure?

Or one Jonjo Shelvey. Not sure if the supports you le position or not though.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

Because there'd be no point appointing a committee then ignoring them, it would be a waste of money. Hence likely.

Or is it more likely they pulled a figure out of their arse and ignored the committee they appointed when the bidding went above that?

Apply a pinch of common sense with the hysterical emotions.

I see your logic but at the same time if all the committee were to agree a player is worth £30m it is still very much up to the owners to pay the money. £30m is a lot of money and that might be more than the outlay the owners are willing to part with over the course of the window.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

However its an educated guess based on known facts not just an over dramatic reaction.

When have I made a dramatic reaction? Because you don't like or agree with it doesn't make it dramatic. Not once have I said a negative word against the owners so I suggest you get your facts straight.

[EwarWoo]

I see your logic but at the same time if all the committee were to agree a player is worth £30m it is still very much up to the owners to pay the money. £30m is a lot of money and that might be more than the outlay the owners are willing to part with over the course of the window.

In which case it was just a cheeky punt for a player we cant afford and it was worth a shot. At least they're willing to try these things

[EwarWoo]

When have I made a dramatic reaction? Because you don't like or agree with it doesn't make it dramatic. Not once have I said a negative word against the owners so I suggest you get your facts straight.

It wasn't necessarily aimed at you, but the owners seem to be unfairly getting some hate over this based on the arguments you're using.

They're a big stretch. And if they are supplying their own valuations it does put the owners in a negative light.

But I don't for 1 second think they are.

[Kenneth]

A £27 million valuation isn't arrived at scientifically. There's no contradiction in paying more than your own valuation, you're just increasing your risk and/or reduce the positive risk that someone will turn out to be more valuable than you anticipated.