The Market value of Every SUFC Player.....

[stringer]

I’m going off the dictionary definition of market value - “the amount for which something can be sold on a given market”.

If we sold Duffy and Clarke the chances are they wouldn’t be replaced like for like with two players aged 33 and 34, so obviously it’s likely to cost more for a 26 or 27 year old, but you’re getting a younger player with the potential to still be at the club in 5 years time and could be sold for a profit.

If we signed signed two players of a similar age with similar CVs, do you think we would be paying £7m combined?

Put it this way, then. How much would you sell Mark Duffy and Leon Clarke for, right now, and who would you replace them with?

 

[YES Blade]

Put it this way, then. How much would you sell Mark Duffy and Leon Clarke for, right now, and who would you replace them with?

Although we are less reliant on them now Dowell and Madine are here, we still need depth to the squad so what’s the point in selling them.

I wouldn’t sell them because we’d only get £2m combined for them.

So who out there would pay £3m for Clarke and £4m for Duffy? What a player is worth to us isn’t there market value.

 

[stringer]

Although we are less reliant on them now Dowell and Madine are here, we still need depth to the squad so what’s the point in selling them.

I wouldn’t sell them because we’d only get £2m combined for them.

So who out there would pay £3m for Clarke and £4m for Duffy? What a player is worth to us isn’t there market value.

No idea. Most likely no-one, but if it were up to me I wouldn’t sell them for less. The valuations were what they’re worth to United. ‘Market value’ is basically a myth in football

 

[YES Blade]

No idea. Most likely no-one, but if it were up to me I wouldn’t sell them for less. The valuations were what they’re worth to United. ‘Market value’ is basically a myth in football

Why does the article use the word “market value” and not “what they are worth to United”?

The article below backs up the point I’m trying to make, the world record for a 34 year old is Lilian Thuram for £3.4m, so how the hell are we going to get close to £3m for Clarke?

https://www.football365.com/news/just-a-number-the-record-fee-for-every-age-from-13-38

 

[stringer]

Why does the article use the word “market value” and not “what they are worth to United”?

The article below backs up the point I’m trying to make, the world record for a 34 year old is Lilian Thuram for £3.4m, so how the hell are we going to get close to £3m for Clarke?

https://www.football365.com/news/just-a-number-the-record-fee-for-every-age-from-13-38

No idea, I just did the values. This is incredibly tedious.

 

[YES Blade]

No idea, I just did the values. This is incredibly tedious.

Yet you keep replying?

 

[stringer]

Yet you keep replying?

When I thought it was a discussion, yes

 

[Millhousesblade1889]

If we were offered £50k for Washington I'd be shocked. Short term contract, no goals in 30. He's a lower Champ to mid table L1 player. Pace is his only real asset from what we've seen

Agreed, he’s useless at this level and it’s probably his last year at it

 

[Chali 2na]

I’m not doing it from the POV of any prospective buyers. I did it from the point of view of SUFC. Taking your Duffy example, if you don’t think he’s worth £4m and they sold him for, say, £3m. Who are you replacing him with for that amount?
Clarke might not be comparable to Bamford in terms of ability but he’s still the third choice striker for a team very much in the automatic promotion picture. If you’d sell him at this stage for less then that’s your opinion but I think it’d be madness to

I’m going off the dictionary definition of market value - “the amount for which something can be sold on a given market”.

If we sold Duffy and Clarke the chances are they wouldn’t be replaced like for like with two players aged 33 and 34, so obviously it’s likely to cost more for a 26 or 27 year old, but you’re getting a younger player with the potential to still be at the club in 5 years time and could be sold for a profit.

If we signed signed two players of a similar age with similar CVs, do you think we would be paying £7m combined?

You both seem to be missing half of the equation.

A player's market value isn't the value placed on him by the selling club, nor is it the amount the buying club is willing to pay - it's both factors combined: When the selling club's valuation is the same as the buying club's valuation, a deal can be reached - that figure would then essentially be a players market value.

Using your example of Clarke, he may be worth say £1.5m to us, but he may only be worth £500k to a prospective buyer. Those figures can't be the same, otherwise he would have left. If you believed my (very) rough figures, his market value would be somewhere in the middle of £500k and £1.5m.

 

[YES Blade]

You both seem to be missing half of the equation.

A player's market value isn't the value placed on him by the selling club, nor is it the amount the buying club is willing to pay - it's both factors combined: When the selling club's valuation is the same as the buying club's valuation, a deal can be reached - that figure would then essentially be a players market value.

Using your example of Clarke, he may be worth say £1.5m to us, but he may only be worth £500k to a prospective buyer. Those figures can't be the same, otherwise he would have left. If you believed my (very) rough figures, his market value would be somewhere in the middle of £500k and £1.5m.

I understand market value, you quoted my post where I gave the definition - “the amount for which something can be sold on any given market”. You’re just describing negotiations.

In your Clarke example, if United start at £1.5m and won’t go below £1m, but no buyer will go above the starting offer of £500k, then what’s his market value? Surely it’s £500k because no one is willing to go higher?

 

[BushBlade]

I understand market value, you quoted my post where I gave the definition - “the amount for which something can be sold on any given market”. You’re just describing negotiations.

In your Clarke example, if United start at £1.5m and won’t go below £1m, but no buyer will go above the starting offer of £500k, then what’s his market value? Surely it’s £500k because no one is willing to go higher?

Only if we wanted to sell. That’s the point about the difference between the two valuations.

Danny is valuing the players on the basis that we don’t want to sell them. So any team that wants them would have to pay over the odds. You’re valuing them on the basis we want to sell, in which case, we’d take the best that’s on offer. The other influential factor, one that no one can answer, is how many teams would be interested.

You can’t really stick a value on a player, just a range, because it’s so dependent on circumstances.

 

[stringer]

Only if we wanted to sell. That’s the point about the difference between the two valuations.

Danny is valuing the players on the basis that we don’t want to sell them. So any team that wants them would have to pay over the odds. You’re valuing them on the basis we want to sell, in which case, we’d take the best that’s on offer. The other influential factor, one that no one can answer, is how many teams would be interested.

You can’t really stick a value on a player, just a range, because it’s so dependent on circumstances.

Hallelujah!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Hallelujah!

Did you read the final paragraph?

 

[stringer]

Did you read the final paragraph?

Yes

 

[Chali 2na]

I understand market value, you quoted my post where I gave the definition - “the amount for which something can be sold on any given market”. You’re just describing negotiations.

In your Clarke example, if United start at £1.5m and won’t go below £1m, but no buyer will go above the starting offer of £500k, then what’s his market value? Surely it’s £500k because no one is willing to go higher?

Quoting a definition does not prove you understand something, I wasn't describing negotiations.

If hypothetically, United won't go below £1m, and no buyer is willing to pay more than £500k then he's been priced out and essentially there is no market for him, and thus no real market value - just a range between the 2 clubs valuations.


I'll give you another example, in La Liga, where the figures are easier because they're predetermined as a buyout clause:

Messi is indispensable to Barcelona, and so in his contract, he has a minimum release fee clause of €700m or £618m.
There is a market for Messi, in a sense that just about every club on the planet would have him in their team, however, due to the cost he is priced out of the market.
If the transfer of Neymar nearly broke the bank of one of the world's richest clubs in PSG, at £200m. Let's assume that the max they (or any other super-rich club) would be able to spend, due to FFP, is around £250m.
That mean Messi's value is somewhere between £250m and £618m.

Now, I'm not for one minute saying Messi is as good as Leon Clarke, but it's just another example.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes

Not really a hallelujah moment seeing as you did put a value on each player.

 

[stringer]

Not really a hallelujah moment seeing as you did put a value on each player.

See I disagree with Bush on that point, every player has a price. They just are completely subjective.
He was bang on about his first part, though. Thanks for your input

 

[Sean Thornton]

See I disagree with Bush on that point, every player has a price. They just are completely subjective.
He was bang on about his first part, though. Thanks for your input

Well you would disagree that both "calculations" were flawed. As clearly they are as they are nothing more than guesses. ( Or are you correct and YES Blade wrong?). A range makes far more sense. Take your valuation of Lundstram for example.

Always pleased to help you out even though you for some reason believe your views are unchallengeable.

 

[BushBlade]

See I disagree with Bush on that point, every player has a price. They just are completely subjective.
He was bang on about his first part, though. Thanks for your input

Bad wording on my part. You can value at either the top or bottom of the market, it just helps if you set out your base assumptions first.

It’s always going to be subjective because of the relatively smalll sample size. When we talk about market value, it’s quite easy to find the market value of cars, houses, retail products etc because there are huge numbers of transactions to base the values on. Whereas there may only be a couple of deals involving a thirty plus year old championship striker or defender each window (and the market is very volatile and can be influenced by a manager who just really wants a player or badly needs one for a certain position).

 

[stringer]

Well you would disagree that both "calculations" were flawed. As clearly they are as they are nothing more than guesses. ( Or are you correct and YES Blade wrong?). A range makes far more sense. Take your valuation of Lundstram for example.

Always pleased to help you out even though you for some reason believe your views are unchallengeable.

You’re wrong, which is surprising because you know me so well.
Of course they’re guesses - what else can they be? You might think Lundstram is worth 20p, I said £2m (because as Bush correctly pointed out United aren’t in a rush to sell which increases the price. Usually)
The reality might well be somewhere in the middle. Is it really that important?

 

[stringer]

Bad wording on my part. You can value at either the top or bottom of the market, it just helps if you set out your base assumptions first.

It’s always going to be subjective because of the relatively smalll sample size. When we talk about market value, it’s quite easy to find the market value of cars, houses, retail products etc because there are huge numbers of transactions to base the values on. Whereas there may only be a couple of deals involving a thirty plus year old championship striker or defender each window (and the market is very volatile and can be influenced by a manager who just really wants a player or badly needs one for a certain position).

Hallelujah. Again

 

[Sean Thornton]

You’re wrong, which is surprising because you know me so well.
Of course they’re guesses - what else can they be? You might think Lundstram is worth 20p, I said £2m (because as Bush correctly pointed out United aren’t in a rush to sell which increases the price. Usually)
The reality might well be somewhere in the middle. Is it really that important?

Last question first, you appear to think so because you did the exercise, after the nonsense in the Star, and then debated it on here. Continuing to do so.

How can someone seemingly not for sale (and no one has made any bid) have his price increased? Particularly a squad player. How does that work?

The Keane Bryan one makes even less sense. £2m+ for someone who has been injured almost all the time he’s been here.

There are guesses and guesses.

 

[Ricky]

Value is what you could get for a player.

The value of the players we own is around £40m.

If you want to add the loanees for some reason, then about £60m.

 

[stringer]

How can someone seemingly not for sale (and no one has made any bid) have his price increased?.

Not sure I understand. What price? His value?

 

[Chali 2na]

Value is what you could get for a player.
.

What's Messi's value then?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Not sure I understand. What price? His value?

Your figure.

 

[stringer]

Your figure.

When did it increase?

 

[Sean Thornton]

When did it increase?

You can’t be this dumb.

“You might think Lundstram is worth 20p, I said £2m (because as Bush correctly pointed out United aren’t in a rush to sell which increases the price. Usually) “

So, as I asked, what causes the price to increase just because United aren’t looking to sell. It only increases if there’s a bid higher than Uniteds valuation. No bid, the clubs valuation is irrelevant. If we were looking to offload a player who wasn’t featuring in the match day squad, his valuation would usually go up?

 

[stringer]

You can’t be this dumb.

“You might think Lundstram is worth 20p, I said £2m (because as Bush correctly pointed out United aren’t in a rush to sell which increases the price. Usually) “

So, as I asked, what causes the price to increase just because United aren’t looking to sell. It only increases if there’s a bid higher than Uniteds valuation. No bid, the clubs valuation is irrelevant. If we were looking to offload a player who wasn’t featuring in the match day squad, his valuation would usually go up?

Players that clubs don’t want to sell usually cost more money to buy. Troll someone else, please

 

[Sean Thornton]

Players that clubs don’t want to sell usually cost more money to buy. Troll someone else, please

Only if anyone bids. If no one wants to buy, you’re claiming the value still goes up?

Troll? Grow up mardy arse.