Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
The problem with the "worth" argument is that it’s so subjective. What's a tin of beans worth?
For me what the price tag is goes out the window as soon as the money has left the account. At that point it becomes completely irrelevant, and the only relevant question is, does he make us better or not. If you want to put money into the equation, then best to look at is the player worth what we pay him each week not what his transfer fee was, as it’s a sunk cost.
Based on that question, it really comes down to whether Allen's level is what we saw in the first half of the season, or the second half. If the first then I'd say yes he's worth keeping. He's as you say a neat and tidy player, distributes very well, and allows us to keep control of the ball. However in most matches, especially where a bit of steel is in order given the choice I'd put Lucas ahead of him, but I still think he has a place and worth keeping. What are we paying the lad?
To look at this in equal measure for Carroll then to be fair the 35M has to be disregarded (which I've said before, including last season) as while it may have been a silly amount the money is gone, and so is irrelevant. The question is would he make the team better, and or is he worth his weekly pay packet. Based on that, the answer would seem to be no, and even more so now. He could play our current system, but his best advocate would be hard pressed to say it was the ideal system for him, and with our current attacking players does anyone really think he'd get much more than a few cup starts? Based on that, he's not really helping the team, and hardly worth his reported weekly compensation.
But if we insist on looking at the transfer fee, then let's at least think of some parallels other than Carroll for comparison. For example was Henderson worth 16M in his first season? What about now? Not sure, what about in 3 seasons from now? Just to show why I put it that way, how many honestly thought Lucas was worth 9M in his first season, his second, or even his third? How many now think 9M six years ago (which might be closer to 12 or even 15M today with football inflation!) was a waste of money?
First of all I have to say that this new Board format is completely assinine cos in order to respond to your latest posting David, I have to go back to a much earlier one, which could make me appear to be talking to myself and probably twice as crazy as I really am. Nothwithstanding, I think maybe the best way to clarify my feelings on Transfer fees is to liken them to buying a car. If I shell out a lot of money on my car and decide after 12 months or so, that it isnt really to my liking but its still got a lot of service life left, then what I paid for it initially is very relevant and I will try my hardest to get back as much as possible of my initial outlay. If however I really like the motor and keep it for a long time and its got a lot of miles on the clock, I do conceed that the origonal cost to me becomes less relevant. Thus as Mr LFC I'm not too bothered about how much I paid for old Lucas Levia 'cos I'm happy that I've had many years of good service from him. However if I'm not too happy with young Andy Carroll after a year or so's service and I want to sell him on I really do want the comfort of at least getting back the major portion of what he cost me initially.In this situation I would suggest that Price Tags are very relevant and not to be cast out of the window as soon as the money has left the account as you have stated. I accept that the Transfer Fee is not as accurate a measure as we would really like, but for me its still the best and easiest yardstick available within reason.
- 1 Reply to RonJ
Ron J...I was able to reply directly to this post ofyours probably cos I was first to read it but if anyone else wants to reply to it they will I think have to use someone elses post that has a reply facility attached. As soon as anyone replies to a post the reply facility attatched directly to that post disappears ? Solution to all this nonesense with the board format would imo be to have Yahoo return the old format ..asap.
Agree with u ideas on the transfer fee system...there are those on the board who seem to want to toss Andy C off to anybody willing to give ANYTHING for him ? This is not logical the lad may very well not be able to justify anybody giving 35 mill for him but imo when u look at what clubs are giving 20 mill for out there then considering his age Premier League starts experience and the fact that he is a full England International warrants getting AT LEAST 20 mill back or keep him on the books....Chelski wouldnt be about to let Torres go for anything less than 20 mill so why should Andy C be sold for less who would u rather have on the books right now Andy or Torres....hes young strong reperesents a perfect Plan B and who knows might very well adapt quite comfortably to Rogers system with a style of play winning any high balls down the middle and being able to hold the ball up well for such as Suarez or Sturridge .He may even able to get on the end of some of those good crosses from Stuart Downing that nobody seems capable of latching onto. Plus for a big lad he seems to require very little space to turn and has an excellent shot on the turn....either which way he has to be a better prospect to have on the books than that deadleg Borini right ?
As usual David, your posting is curiously interesting or maybe more interestingly curious. Transfer fees to me are only a snapshot in time and usualy reflect past performance, age and experience together with a little of how much playing value he gives to my team as opposed to how much I think you may be willing to pay so as to secure that playing potential for your team. However the ideal is usually to buy low and sell high which I seem to remember is the considered view of John Henry and Co's "moneyball" transfer cash booster theory. Truely, a can of beans is relatively a very desirable and expensive comodity to a starving beggar but to a millionaire it's probably a hardly desireable and worthless whatnot that has no place on the rich mans table. I guess therefore if my name is Roman Abramovitch or Sheik Abu Dhabi then the price tag matters very little 'cos I can always quite easily go and get someone else without too much concern as to where the money is coming from. However if my Club is Cashstrapped FC then the profit and loss of buying and selling becomes very important in determining whether I can afford to upgrade the quality of my playing staff. I suppose last August if I'd wanted to buy Clint Dempsey at £8M, I could easily have off loaded Andy Carroll at £15 M. I could have saved on Andy's great big monthly pay packet but to take such a big hit on the £35 M paid for asset?? Hmmm, dont think so. I dont honestly think John Henry and Co see price tags as irrelevant and I'm afraid, neither do I. If we went back to the market place now I dont think we'd get anywere near our money back on Carroll, Henderson, Borrini or Joe Allen..................but Luis Suarez....now thats one that really, really does worry me.
- 1 Reply to RonJ
Ron from your reply I think you do understand what I mean by the price tag being subjective and is therefore the notion of worth related to that price tag becomes very subjective. As you rightly point out some one starving will value that tin of beans with the last penny in his pocket, while if I've just had dinner you may have to pay me to tuck into some baked beans!
But there are other variables in determine price which have little to do with the quality of the player. How much is left on his existing deal being a major factor, as in essence you never buy a player anymore (not since Bossman anyway) but just buy out the existing contract and then have the right to offer a new contract.
I'm not saying transfers costs themselves have no meaning, and if the question is with 15M in the transfer kitty who do we spend it on, player A or player B, then obviously there is a discussion on which player is the better value. However once the money is spent it becomes a redundant discussion. Put it this way what you paid for your house is interesting, but if like most home owners your house is your biggest asset, its what its worth now, or what it might be worth when you’re ready to sell that is more important.