Transfer expenditure across the championship
Comments
-
I think going to 2 decimal places was a bit over the top32
-
Well its nice to see that no one had to pay £700,000.23p for any of their playersBen18 said:I think going to 2 decimal places was a bit over the top
1 -
don't know how they know our figures as they are always "undisclosed"........0
-
Did you read the OP?golfaddick said:don't know how they know our figures as they are always "undisclosed"........
7 -
Sadly, due to the inaccuracy of transfermarkt I don't think this gives any indication as to what the clubs have invested, I suspect they have also included the value of a player when he was signed on a free, like Ceballos. It also doesn't give any indication as to the total cost of the players with respect to contracts (wages and term).
It is interesting though, although the most interesting thing is that it is Sheff Wed fans that have done it, presumably, because it looks like they have spent quite a lot.1 -
Interestingly Joe Gomez is worth £1.75m on transfermkt and Raheem Sterling is worth £28m.2
-
It is interesting for sure. But I guarantee Fulham would've been top last season (11m on McCormack alone) and that didn't do them much good.0
-
I thought QPR and Forest had transfer embargoes0
-
While Transfermarkt valuations might be different to actual fees paid, it gives an idea of the relative quality of player signed, which is the thing that matters. I think it would maybe be more useful to see net changes - ie incomings minus outgoings
Who have Sheffield Wednesday signed? I see they've signed a few players from Portugal and re-signed some others. Is there a big name signing among that £12m figure?0 -
Some clubs have low figures for transfer fees, but they may have signed players on frees where the signing on free is high.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
For me, it gives an indication of the general level / relative quality of player clubs have been bringing in.0
-
Using transfermarkt means that the opposite is more likely, as a player signed on a 'free' will still have a value on transfermarkt. It's not an indication of expenditure - it's a proxy of quality.Ross said:Some clubs have low figures for transfer fees, but they may have signed players on frees where the signing on free is high.
0 -
You got an extra R in that word : - )IA said:
Using transfermarkt means that the opposite is more likely, as a player signed on a 'free' will still have a value on transfermarkt. It's not an indication of expenditure - it's a proxy of quality.Ross said:Some clubs have low figures for transfer fees, but they may have signed players on frees where the signing on free is high.
£5.5m is closer for us I'm lead to believe.
0 -
The table would be more helpful if it also stated how many players were involved, but it confirms my impression that the Udders haven't been doing a lot of business. Are they broke or don't they trust Sir Chris? No, this is not an invitation for a rant, Leedsbased.1
-
Either way it's considerably more than we have invested for many a season.Henry Irving said:
You got an extra R in that word : - )IA said:
Using transfermarkt means that the opposite is more likely, as a player signed on a 'free' will still have a value on transfermarkt. It's not an indication of expenditure - it's a proxy of quality.Ross said:Some clubs have low figures for transfer fees, but they may have signed players on frees where the signing on free is high.
£5.5m is closer for us I'm lead to believe.1 -
indeedflyingkiwiDK said:
Either way it's considerably more than we have invested for many a season.Henry Irving said:
You got an extra R in that word : - )IA said:
Using transfermarkt means that the opposite is more likely, as a player signed on a 'free' will still have a value on transfermarkt. It's not an indication of expenditure - it's a proxy of quality.Ross said:Some clubs have low figures for transfer fees, but they may have signed players on frees where the signing on free is high.
£5.5m is closer for us I'm lead to believe.1 -
don't think QPR have, yet, but both Forest and Blackburn have so they couldn't have spent any actual money BUT these signings are based on the players value on TransferMarket so effectively this chart means diddly-squat.PL54 said:I thought QPR and Forest had transfer embargoes
0 -
Why are people so hostile to Transfermarkt??LargeAddick said:
don't think QPR have, yet, but both Forest and Blackburn have so they couldn't have spent any actual money BUT these signings are based on the players value on TransferMarket so effectively this chart means diddly-squat.PL54 said:I thought QPR and Forest had transfer embargoes
It's NOT the amount of money spent by each club. I don't think Transfermarkt even pretends that it is. It is an attempt at judging the value of the players brought in. And in this respect, it's probably more accurate than 'some bloke on the internet' but less accurate than looking at the past after the season is finished1 -
but is it just "some bloke/s on the internet"IA said:
Why are people so hostile to Transfermarkt??LargeAddick said:
don't think QPR have, yet, but both Forest and Blackburn have so they couldn't have spent any actual money BUT these signings are based on the players value on TransferMarket so effectively this chart means diddly-squat.PL54 said:I thought QPR and Forest had transfer embargoes
It's NOT the amount of money spent by each club. I don't think Transfermarkt even pretends that it is. It is an attempt at judging the value of the players brought in. And in this respect, it's probably more accurate than 'some bloke on the internet' but less accurate than looking at the past after the season is finished1 -
Is that the best you can do?0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Good grief!golfaddick said:don't know how they know our figures as they are always "undisclosed"........
0 -
As Wednesday are 2nd in that table will they be having a transfer market open top bus tour?12
-
Strange.IA said:Is that the best you can do?
It IS just some blokes on the internet. That is the point.1 -
What makes it more accurate than "some bloke on the Internet" ? As far as I can see that's basically what it is.IA said:
Why are people so hostile to Transfermarkt??LargeAddick said:
don't think QPR have, yet, but both Forest and Blackburn have so they couldn't have spent any actual money BUT these signings are based on the players value on TransferMarket so effectively this chart means diddly-squat.PL54 said:I thought QPR and Forest had transfer embargoes
It's NOT the amount of money spent by each club. I don't think Transfermarkt even pretends that it is. It is an attempt at judging the value of the players brought in. And in this respect, it's probably more accurate than 'some bloke on the internet' but less accurate than looking at the past after the season is finished
Here's Joe Gomez's profile;
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/joe-gomez/profil/spieler/256178#ath
In what world is his "current market value" £1.75m ?
People can believe Transfermarkt is in some way reflective of a players value if they like - and with the rise of "undisclosed fees" I can see why that would plug a gap - but please don't kid yourself that it's in anyway reflective of a players actual market value - we can see that it really isn't.1 -
I've said three times on this thread that I don't think it reflects the amounts spent by clubs. How many more times do I have to say it?
I don't put any particular stock in transfermarkt or care what their ratings are. I was asking why there was so much hostility to it. I had thought someone could point to an implicit bias or flaw in how they rate players, or that there were documented reasons for considering it completely pointless, on a par with Dave from Chelmsford posting on the Daily Mail website.
I get it now. The website was overused by one poster on here in past seasons as a font of knowledge. It became an easy way of ridiculing that poster's opinion and that's been carried on.
I thought there would be more to it.1 -
You don't have to say it anymore times.IA said:I've said three times on this thread that I don't think it reflects the amounts spent by clubs. How many more times do I have to say it?
I don't put any particular stock in transfermarkt or care what their ratings are. I was asking why there was so much hostility to it. I had thought someone could point to an implicit bias or flaw in how they rate players, or that there were documented reasons for considering it completely pointless, on a par with Dave from Chelmsford posting on the Daily Mail website.
I get it now. The website was overused by one poster on here in past seasons as a font of knowledge. It became an easy way of ridiculing that poster's opinion and that's been carried on.
I thought there would be more to it.
It's not that there's "so much hostility" towards Transfermarkt- the genesis of this thread is someone trying to use the combined "market value" figures given by that site to represent how much each team has invested this summer, and then put it in a little table - I think I, and a couple of others, are saying that the values are completely meaningless (as the Gomez profile proves) therefore the figures shown are nonsense.0 -
No, what you said wasIA said:I've said three times on this thread that I don't think it reflects the amounts spent by clubs. How many more times do I have to say it?
I don't put any particular stock in transfermarkt or care what their ratings are. I was asking why there was so much hostility to it. I had thought someone could point to an implicit bias or flaw in how they rate players, or that there were documented reasons for considering it completely pointless, on a par with Dave from Chelmsford posting on the Daily Mail website.
I get it now. The website was overused by one poster on here in past seasons as a font of knowledge. It became an easy way of ridiculing that poster's opinion and that's been carried on.
I thought there would be more to it.
"Why are people so hostile to Transfermarkt??
It's NOT the amount of money spent by each club. I don't think Transfermarkt even pretends that it is. It is an attempt at judging the value of the players brought in. And in this respect, it's probably more accurate than 'some bloke on the internet' but less accurate than looking at the past after the season is finished"
I and other question the validity of the judgements it makes on the "value of players".
You stated " it's probably more accurate than 'some bloke on the internet' " but it clearly is not as it is just some bloke/s on the internet guessing or using media numbers.
The use of Transfermarket, or in some cases a total reliance on it, just undermines any arguement as it has no validity. SE9Addick has given one very simple example of that with Gomez.
When the bloke/s on the internet get round to it they will bump up his value to £3.5m or a bit more as that was the price commonly mentioned in the media. That's how poor and unworthy of being given any credence it is.0 -
Thanks for copying and pasting a passage where I said that the figures are not the amounts spent by each club.0
-
But no one is saying that you said that.
Just saying that these values of players ( not fees) ARE JUST MADE UP BY SOME BLOKES ON THE INTERNET whilst you say you trust these values ( not fees) more than values (not fees) made up by some bloke on the Internet.
Like me saying I would rather trust a post from Len Glover than Leroy Ambrose as Leroy is just some bloke on the Internet.0 -
Bloody hell...can the football start soon?0
