Transfer fees and relativity

[Geordie Blade]

We've broken our transfer record four times this summer and, like everyone else, I'm getting rather giddy with it all. However, it's easy to forget about 'football inflation' and fall into the trap of thinking that a £20 million player must be better than anyone that we've ever signed before. It's interesting to look back at our last two promotions, and think about the relative transfer fees that we're spending:

	1990	2007	2019
British record transfer fee	£4.25m (Chris Waddle to Marseille)	£30.8m (Andre Shevchenko to Chelsea)	£105.0m (Philippe Coutinho to Barcelona)
SUFC's biggest signing	£0.75m (Vinnie Jones)	£3.42m (Matt Kilgallon)*	£17m(?) (Oli McBurnie)
Proportion of British record	18%	11%	17%
Equivalent in today's prices	£18.5m	£11.7m	£17m

*In 2006, there were three players (Kilgallon, Davis and Hulse) bought for very similar fees.

So, believe it or not, we actually splashed out relatively more on a player (Vinnie Jones, no less) in the tight-fisted days of Dave Bassett than we have this summer. Using the same ratios, Callum Robinson's fee is equivalent to what we paid for Jamie Hoyland and Lys Mousset is about the same as Paul Beesley.

I'm still very excited about the activity this summer, but I don't want to get carried away with crazy expectations; although the quality and attitude of our signings looks excellent, we are still a fairly small fish in a big pond. That said, we're going to bite like a bastard piranha.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Cheers. Interesting analysis that.

 

[Wards]

Cracking work is that. Also shows how we gave 2007 a decent go despite the relatively small outlay.

 

[ThroughThinAndThinner]

Nice analysis! Do you have similar for total spends including the football inflation?

 

[Geordie Blade]

Nice analysis! Do you have similar for total spends including the football inflation?

We've spent about £40m so far this summer. In 1990, we spent £3.1m (which is the equivalent of £76.1m in today's football money) and in 2006, we spent £16.2m (equivalent to £55.3m). However, the 1990 and 2006 figures include the full season, not just the summer.

 

[ThroughThinAndThinner]

We've spent about £40m so far this summer. In 1990, we spent £3.1m (which is the equivalent of £76.1m in today's football money) and in 2006, we spent £16.2m (equivalent to £55.3m). However, the 1990 and 2006 figures include the full season, not just the summer.

We really went for in 1990 didn’t we! And finished 13th. I’d take that.

 

[MobileBlade]

We've broken our transfer record four times this summer and, like everyone else, I'm getting rather giddy with it all. However, it's easy to forget about 'football inflation' and fall into the trap of thinking that a £20 million player must be better than anyone that we've ever signed before. It's interesting to look back at our last two promotions, and think about the relative transfer fees that we're spending:

	1990	2007	2019
British record transfer fee	£4.25m (Chris Waddle to Marseille)	£30.8m (Andre Shevchenko to Chelsea)	£105.0m (Philippe Coutinho to Barcelona)
SUFC's biggest signing	£0.75m (Vinnie Jones)	£3.42m (Matt Kilgallon)*	£17m(?) (Oli McBurnie)
Proportion of British record	18%	11%	17%
Equivalent in today's prices	£18.5m	£11.7m	£17m

*In 2006, there were three players (Kilgallon, Davis and Hulse) bought for very similar fees.

So, believe it or not, we actually splashed out relatively more on a player (Vinnie Jones, no less) in the tight-fisted days of Dave Bassett than we have this summer. Using the same ratios, Callum Robinson's fee is equivalent to what we paid for Jamie Hoyland and Lys Mousset is about the same as Paul Beesley.

I'm still very excited about the activity this summer, but I don't want to get carried away with crazy expectations; although the quality and attitude of our signings looks excellent, we are still a fairly small fish in a big pond. That said, we're going to bite like a bastard piranha.

How does that work out in relation to income though. TV money has inflated things massively.

 

[Geordie Blade]

How does that work out in relation to income though. TV money has inflated things massively.

Yes, that's exactly the point. TV money has been the main driver of this inflation, which is why I thought it might be useful to compare against previous benchmarks. I don't think that comparing it against 'income' would be that useful though, because the inflation is linked to spending. The comparison was to see what sort of spending budget we're dealing with, and what we can expect to get for a certain fee. If we benchmark the top players from each era against each other, it lets us see how the relative fees for the lower down players would look.

 

[MobileBlade]

Yes, that's exactly the point. TV money has been the main driver of this inflation, which is why I thought it might be useful to compare against previous benchmarks. I don't think that comparing it against 'income' would be that useful though, because the inflation is linked to spending. The comparison was to see what sort of spending budget we're dealing with, and what we can expect to get for a certain fee. If we benchmark the top players from each era against each other, it lets us see how the relative fees for the lower down players would look.

Disagree. Depends how much disposable income you have. You may have income of say £6m with overheads of say £5m but if you then spend £1.5m on say a right back - then you have spent 30% of your income and in a loss situation. If you have income of say £90m and your overheads are about £40m and you then spend £27m on a centre forward you have spent 30% of your income but you are still well within your range to do it. Who is the better player the £1.5m or the £27m? That's where it becomes relative.

In 1991 what was the income of Marsaille and what was that transfer fee as a % of income to say our income in 1991. Similarly, what is the Barcelona income (although in fairness that would be distorted due to the transfer of Naymar) and as a % outgoing in comparison. If you put all that together you get a true comparison.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Disagree. Depends how much disposable income you have. You may have income of say £6m with overheads of say £5m but if you then spend £1.5m on say a right back - then you have spent 30% of your income and in a loss situation. If you have income of say £90m and your overheads are about £40m and you then spend £27m on a centre forward you have spent 30% of your income but you are still well within your range to do it. Who is the better player the £1.5m or the £27m? That's where it becomes relative.

In 1991 what was the income of Marsaille and what was that transfer fee as a % of income to say our income in 1991. Similarly, what is the Barcelona income (although in fairness that would be distorted due to the transfer of Naymar) and as a % outgoing in comparison. If you put all that together you get a true comparison.

Go on then, I'm waiting...

I think we're asking/answering slightly different questions. Your approach is about the ability to pay. My approach was essentially trying to work out what 'grade' of player you get for a given budget. If the 'best' player* is worth £100m today, then £20m might get you, say, the 50th best player. Going back to 1990, we could assume* that the 50th best player's fee would be an equivalent proportion of the top fee. I know that in reality it probably doesn't work out like that to exact pound, but it's not far off.

* a simplifying assumption is that the 'best' player is the one who went for the most money, which I know isn't necessarily true.
** yeah, whatever.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wouldn't the average transfer fee for each year be a better comparison?

 

[Brian Blessed]

£18.5m for Vinny Jones, a little bit of wee just came out

 

[bypassblade]

Yes Sky money has made PL clubs rich beyond belief even we have a slice of the pie now and, you're seeing vastly over inflated transfer fees. Even players who were "bit" players can go for 10m and like Maguire 80m it's crazy but, we cannot stop it and it's a merry go round that one day will blow up.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Wouldn't the average transfer fee for each year be a better comparison?

Yes it would. If you can find me the full list of all transfers in 1990, I’ll work out the average for you.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Cheers. Interesting analysis that.

I agree. Well done Geordie Blade.

It’s so interesting in fact that The Star have nicked your idea and made an article out of it!

Sheffield United: Every time the Blades have broken their transfer record in the last 20 years as Oli McBurnie completes move

Sheffield United have broken their transfer record for the fourth time this summer, with Oli McBurnie joining for a fee believed to be in the region of £17m, with a possible extra £3m in add-ons.

www.thestar.co.uk

Although they’ve bolloxed it up by starting from 1989 and claiming it was in the last “20” years!

 

[Snowman]

I agree. Well done Geordie Blade.

It’s so interesting in fact that The Star have nicked your idea and made an article out of it!

Sheffield United: Every time the Blades have broken their transfer record in the last 20 years as Oli McBurnie completes move

Sheffield United have broken their transfer record for the fourth time this summer, with Oli McBurnie joining for a fee believed to be in the region of £17m, with a possible extra £3m in add-ons.

www.thestar.co.uk

?

 

[Punk Blade]

In 1991 what was the income of Marsaille and what was that transfer fee as a % of income to say our income in 1991. Similarly, what is the Barcelona income (although in fairness that would be distorted due to the transfer of Naymar) and as a % outgoing in comparison. If you put all that together you get a true comparison.

Summat up with your E key, Mobile?

 

[MobileBlade]

Go on then, I'm waiting...

I think we're asking/answering slightly different questions. Your approach is about the ability to pay. My approach was essentially trying to work out what 'grade' of player you get for a given budget. If the 'best' player* is worth £100m today, then £20m might get you, say, the 50th best player. Going back to 1990, we could assume* that the 50th best player's fee would be an equivalent proportion of the top fee. I know that in reality it probably doesn't work out like that to exact pound, but it's not far off.

* a simplifying assumption is that the 'best' player is the one who went for the most money, which I know isn't necessarily true.
** yeah, whatever.

Summat up with your E key, Mobile?

May have been what I was taking.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

We've broken our transfer record four times this summer and, like everyone else, I'm getting rather giddy with it all. However, it's easy to forget about 'football inflation' and fall into the trap of thinking that a £20 million player must be better than anyone that we've ever signed before. It's interesting to look back at our last two promotions, and think about the relative transfer fees that we're spending:

	1990	2007	2019
British record transfer fee	£4.25m (Chris Waddle to Marseille)	£30.8m (Andre Shevchenko to Chelsea)	£105.0m (Philippe Coutinho to Barcelona)
SUFC's biggest signing	£0.75m (Vinnie Jones)	£3.42m (Matt Kilgallon)*	£17m(?) (Oli McBurnie)
Proportion of British record	18%	11%	17%
Equivalent in today's prices	£18.5m	£11.7m	£17m

*In 2006, there were three players (Kilgallon, Davis and Hulse) bought for very similar fees.

So, believe it or not, we actually splashed out relatively more on a player (Vinnie Jones, no less) in the tight-fisted days of Dave Bassett than we have this summer. Using the same ratios, Callum Robinson's fee is equivalent to what we paid for Jamie Hoyland and Lys Mousset is about the same as Paul Beesley.

I'm still very excited about the activity this summer, but I don't want to get carried away with crazy expectations; although the quality and attitude of our signings looks excellent, we are still a fairly small fish in a big pond. That said, we're going to bite like a bastard piranha.

So McCabe is still a tight bastard then?

 

[LenTednTony]

This was a great comparison, thank you.

 

[Silent Blade]

I agree. Well done Geordie Blade.

It’s so interesting in fact that The Star have nicked your idea and made an article out of it!

Sheffield United: Every time the Blades have broken their transfer record in the last 20 years as Oli McBurnie completes move

Sheffield United have broken their transfer record for the fourth time this summer, with Oli McBurnie joining for a fee believed to be in the region of £17m, with a possible extra £3m in add-ons.

www.thestar.co.uk

Although they’ve bolloxed it up by starting from 1989 and claiming it was in the last “20” years!

I can go further to 1968.

John Tudor from Coventry to United in October 1968 for £65,000

Alex Sabella from River Plate to United in July 1978 for £160,000

Cant think who was our record signing before Tudor?

 

[jono_t2000]

Yes it would. If you can find me the full list of all transfers in 1990, I’ll work out the average for you.

Great work sir! And adding to average, trying to work out average spend for more recent times with undisclosed and add-ons would be virtually impossible.

I definitely think the way you have done it is the most sensible.

 

[Eskimo]

I can go further to 1968.

John Tudor from Coventry to United in October 1968 for £65,000

Alex Sabella from River Plate to United in July 1978 for £160,000

Cant think who was our record signing before Tudor?

Was it Addison at £40k?

 

[Cassius Kray]

Yes it would. If you can find me the full list of all transfers in 1990, I’ll work out the average for you.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/

If I get any time this weekend I might try and put something together.

 

[snootyfenooty]

We've broken our transfer record four times this summer and, like everyone else, I'm getting rather giddy with it all. However, it's easy to forget about 'football inflation' and fall into the trap of thinking that a £20 million player must be better than anyone that we've ever signed before. It's interesting to look back at our last two promotions, and think about the relative transfer fees that we're spending:

	1990	2007	2019
British record transfer fee	£4.25m (Chris Waddle to Marseille)	£30.8m (Andre Shevchenko to Chelsea)	£105.0m (Philippe Coutinho to Barcelona)
SUFC's biggest signing	£0.75m (Vinnie Jones)	£3.42m (Matt Kilgallon)*	£17m(?) (Oli McBurnie)
Proportion of British record	18%	11%	17%
Equivalent in today's prices	£18.5m	£11.7m	£17m

*In 2006, there were three players (Kilgallon, Davis and Hulse) bought for very similar fees.

So, believe it or not, we actually splashed out relatively more on a player (Vinnie Jones, no less) in the tight-fisted days of Dave Bassett than we have this summer. Using the same ratios, Callum Robinson's fee is equivalent to what we paid for Jamie Hoyland and Lys Mousset is about the same as Paul Beesley.

I'm still very excited about the activity this summer, but I don't want to get carried away with crazy expectations; although the quality and attitude of our signings looks excellent, we are still a fairly small fish in a big pond. That said, we're going to bite like a bastard piranha.

Great stuff. Allow me to go back one step further to the 70/71 promotion season. If I recall the only addition to the squad was Scullion who cost £25k, about 10% of the going rate those days. Other than that we made do with what we already had and got off to that famous flyer. The genius of John Harris.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

90 thousands a lot of money

 

[Silent Blade]

Was it Addison at £40k?

Good answer. Higher than we paid for Carlin?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I can go further to 1968.

John Tudor from Coventry to United in October 1968 for £65,000

Alex Sabella from River Plate to United in July 1978 for £160,000

Cant think who was our record signing before Tudor?

Carlin, £40k?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Carlin, £40k?

Or Addison......