[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Bale is a lot younger than Young and would have been in contract (for transfer fee purposes) until he was 24.
In the same way we got more for Bent than Arsenal got for Henry. I think Henry is a better player but he is older and his contract was running down.
And now my house if "worth" less than last year. Same house but different price. Why? Different market.
So if Jonjo doesn't walk before February we can look forward to a decent fee for him then applying the "Bale" principle?:-)
Unfortunately yes. I'd rather he played his whole career with us but like Parker and Bowyer if he goes I hope we can get top money for him. What we get will depend on how good he is, how many teams want him, which teams want him and what the market is like.
I think Spurs have more cause the complaint. Diaware £5m now £20m, Defoe £8m now £14m (I haven't checked those figures but you know what I mean).
Diarra has nothing to do with Spurs. Pompey signed him from Arsenal.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Bale is a lot younger than Young and would have been in contract (for transfer fee purposes) until he was 24.
In the same way we got more for Bent than Arsenal got for Henry. I think Henry is a better player but he is older and his contract was running down.
And now my house if "worth" less than last year. Same house but different price. Why? Different market.
So if Jonjo doesn't walk before February we can look forward to a decent fee for him then applying the "Bale" principle?:-)
Unfortunately yes. I'd rather he played his whole career with us but like Parker and Bowyer if he goes I hope we can get top money for him. What we get will depend on how good he is, how many teams want him, which teams want him and what the market is like.
I think Spurs have more cause the complaint. Diaware £5m now £20m, Defoe £8m now £14m (I haven't checked those figures but you know what I mean).
Diarra has nothing to do with Spurs. Pompey signed him from Arsenal.
Arsenal, Spurs all the same team to me ; - )
Quite right Chris, thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Still Arsenal and Chelsea fans must be pleased that they let him go and now he's worth 4 times as much.
but we moan about spotty parker moving to chelsea to secure his family's future and he should have stayed with us broken his leg the next season and not ever played again..... oh well whatever suits us
A point about Luke Young, have to remember it was a completely different situation. Aston Villa were desperate to buy a right back, Middlesbrough weren't desperate to sell.
When we sold him, we needed the money and had to get him off the wage bill.
To be fair to the board you are pressured into selling by external factors, this means that players are sold at there perceived value at the time. If a club knows you're virtually forced to sell, and their the only interest, they're the price makers have the bargaining power; the cost of not doing business is more harmful to the seller. In the Boughera situation we were lucky that there was some other interest in him, and Rangers had just sold Cuellar for a very good profit close to or past their season start. Without these factors we'd have not got 2.5 million for him; his previous seasons performances barely made him a reliable 2 million investment. If we were selling him now I'd doubt we'd make half of the 2.5.
To use Henry's analogy if you're forced to sell your house within a week to prevent fore-closure you'll get nowhere near market value.
It is galling to see a no sell on clause from Middlesboro, but the club publicly stated we were allowing Luke to go because of his service to the club. Middlesboro were the only concrete interest and thus they were the price maker, even though they were the buyer. Not only that but everyone thought they knew whether untrue or not that Luke Young had failed a medical at WHam, which further reduced our bargaining power and pool of buyers. Luke Young was not average for us but a good consistent performer, who as someone had said we'd had an excellent return on our investment. Consistent performance of a full back in regards to the support of his team-mates has become self evident in this and last season. I would have prefferred the club to take a more aggressive business approach; as no doubt Tottenham would do. However if there's one player I would not want hindered in his career recently that would be Luke Young, and I'm glad the deal has been beneficial to him.
This could obviously be read the same for clubs stronger than us selling players to us, we are price takers. The lesson there is don't take reserve players who are consistently proved to be inconsistent in the prem; unless they cost virtually nothing.
It's a shame in this country you can't sell a player and retain part ownership. This would be of no help in the Luke Young scenario because Middlesboro hold the bargaining power, but with Danny Shittu and Chris Dickson two players with undoubted talent it's a shame to lose out on them proving themselves elsewhere.
Comments
Only due to the fuss we made. The rules said we weren't entitled to anything and the other club offered us nothing.
Because of that the rules were changed but our board don't play hard ball, they just roll over and take whatever is offered don't they. : - )
Diarra has nothing to do with Spurs. Pompey signed him from Arsenal.
I agree he was aways good for us! should have played vs spurs and liverpool last games in prem.
Arsenal, Spurs all the same team to me ; - )
Quite right Chris, thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Still Arsenal and Chelsea fans must be pleased that they let him go and now he's worth 4 times as much.
When we sold him, we needed the money and had to get him off the wage bill.
agree 100% was gutted when he went.
To use Henry's analogy if you're forced to sell your house within a week to prevent fore-closure you'll get nowhere near market value.
It is galling to see a no sell on clause from Middlesboro, but the club publicly stated we were allowing Luke to go because of his service to the club. Middlesboro were the only concrete interest and thus they were the price maker, even though they were the buyer. Not only that but everyone thought they knew whether untrue or not that Luke Young had failed a medical at WHam, which further reduced our bargaining power and pool of buyers. Luke Young was not average for us but a good consistent performer, who as someone had said we'd had an excellent return on our investment. Consistent performance of a full back in regards to the support of his team-mates has become self evident in this and last season. I would have prefferred the club to take a more aggressive business approach; as no doubt Tottenham would do. However if there's one player I would not want hindered in his career recently that would be Luke Young, and I'm glad the deal has been beneficial to him.
This could obviously be read the same for clubs stronger than us selling players to us, we are price takers. The lesson there is don't take reserve players who are consistently proved to be inconsistent in the prem; unless they cost virtually nothing.
It's a shame in this country you can't sell a player and retain part ownership. This would be of no help in the Luke Young scenario because Middlesboro hold the bargaining power, but with Danny Shittu and Chris Dickson two players with undoubted talent it's a shame to lose out on them proving themselves elsewhere.