People may talk about the transfer fees being over-inflated or under-valued, but I was reliably informed recently about the mechanics of one or two transfer dealings and the examples I was given kind of prove the logic of them is actually pretty straightforward. In basic terms, certain selling clubs can now easily argue (especially if a player is moving to the Premiership) that a player's value is equal to that of the contract they are likely to be offered by the buying club, or in other words, the more the buying club are willing to pay a player, the more valuable he is to them.
It's kind of backed up by these examples (in rough terms):
2yr contract @ £10k a week (£500k pa) = £1m
Russell Anderson
4yr contract @ £20k a week (£1m pa) = £4m
Scott Brown
5yr contract @ £33k a week (£1.6m pa) = £8m
Alan Hutton
I found it pretty interesting as a way of trying to get some tangibility out of transfer values. By definition, if AFC are only ever willing to pay a player £2k a week (£100k pa) on a 3-year contract, then £300k is the max value we'd ever place on a player, yet because we're skint, it's unlikely we'll pay that for a while and we'll rely on free transfers and loan signings.
By the same token, I see WBA are ready to offer Hearts £2m for Roman Bednar. Scored a few goals for them, yes, but personally I wouldn't rate him a £2m striker. But because Hearts are likely to be paying him pretty good wages (let's for arguement's sake say £10k a week), he can thus negotiate a similar deal at WBA - if he signs a 4yr deal at £10k a week, Hearts can value him at £2m. SImilar happened with Craig Gordon and this is how Mad Vlad sees HMFC being a big "selling club". It's the speculate to accumulate philosophy. Can't see the Dons catching on anytime soon...
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
People may talk about the transfer fees being over-inflated or under-valued, but I was reliably informed recently about the mechanics of one or two transfer dealings and the examples I was given kind of prove the logic of them is actually pretty straightforward. In basic terms, certain selling clubs can now easily argue (especially if a player is moving to the Premiership) that a player's value is equal to that of the contract they are likely to be offered by the buying club, or in other words, the more the buying club are willing to pay a player, the more valuable he is to them.
It's kind of backed up by these examples (in rough terms):
2yr contract @ £10k a week (£500k pa) = £1m
Russell Anderson
4yr contract @ £20k a week (£1m pa) = £4m
Scott Brown
5yr contract @ £33k a week (£1.6m pa) = £8m
Alan Hutton
I found it pretty interesting as a way of trying to get some tangibility out of transfer values. By definition, if AFC are only ever willing to pay a player £2k a week (£100k pa) on a 3-year contract, then £300k is the max value we'd ever place on a player, yet because we're skint, it's unlikely we'll pay that for a while and we'll rely on free transfers and loan signings.
By the same token, I see WBA are ready to offer Hearts £2m for Roman Bednar. Scored a few goals for them, yes, but personally I wouldn't rate him a £2m striker. But because Hearts are likely to be paying him pretty good wages (let's for arguement's sake say £10k a week), he can thus negotiate a similar deal at WBA - if he signs a 4yr deal at £10k a week, Hearts can value him at £2m. SImilar happened with Craig Gordon and this is how Mad Vlad sees HMFC being a big "selling club". It's the speculate to accumulate philosophy. Can't see the Dons catching on anytime soon...