Player valuations - New way to price a player

Jacko93 · June 17, 2015

Was just having a think, albeit a very brief one, so there may be many holes in it.....

Anyhoo, was wondering how the valuations of players are done these days, and if it can be changed to bring in some level of parity and fairness. So, what if the value of a player was based upon the salary and contract length they were offered? So, using Sterling only as an example..... Liverpool offered him circa £100kpw on a 5 year deal. That would be £26m over the length of the term, so his value, to Liverpool is seen as no more than £26m. If they wanted to get more £50m for him through a sale, they would have to of offered him circa £200kpw, which it is possible that Sterling would of accepted, so it wouldn't be in their interest to offer it unless they could afford to pay it.

Of course, as now, the club doesn't have to accept any offer while they are contracted, it just would go some way to halt the ridiclulous prices being paid that leave us far, far behind.

I can already see some holes in the theory, but....

tim gabbott · June 17, 2015

But.....

Prevenger17 · June 17, 2015

Nope, I lost you at "anyhoo".

The Cowboy · June 17, 2015

Every transaction must involve an academy/U19 player going in the other direction - chosen without restriction by the selling club. Would reduce the simultaneous buying of developed and young potential by clubs like Chelsea. If they want to buy Sterling, Liverpool would get free run over Chelsea's academy list.

SpurtingLesbian · June 17, 2015

Jacko93 said:
Was just having a think, albeit a very brief one, so there may be many holes in it.....

Anyhoo, was wondering how the valuations of players are done these days, and if it can be changed to bring in some level of parity and fairness. So, what if the value of a player was based upon the salary and contract length they were offered? So, using Sterling only as an example..... Liverpool offered him circa £100kpw on a 5 year deal. That would be £26m over the length of the term, so his value, to Liverpool is seen as no more than £26m. If they wanted to get more £50m for him through a sale, they would have to of offered him circa £200kpw, which it is possible that Sterling would of accepted, so it wouldn't be in their interest to offer it unless they could afford to pay it.

Of course, as now, the club doesn't have to accept any offer while they are contracted, it just would go some way to halt the ridiclulous prices being paid that leave us far, far behind.

I can already see some holes in the theory, but....

They are valued at what the highest bidder is willing to pay. What's wrong with that?

Jacko93 · June 17, 2015

SpurtingLesbian said:
They are valued at what the highest bidder is willing to pay. What's wrong with that?

Because it is creating a huge gap in the market. There is becoming less and less point in competing when the top 4 can just pay whatever they want which is inevitably just more than anybody else. It takes the competition out of the game.

SpurtingLesbian · June 17, 2015

Jacko93 said:
Because it is creating a huge gap in the market. There is becoming less and less point in competing when the top 4 can just pay whatever they want which is inevitably just more than anybody else. It takes the competition out of the game.

so you want to created a false market where the top clubs accumulate even more money because you don't allow them to spend it?

Jacko93 · June 17, 2015

SpurtingLesbian said:
so you want to created a false market where the top clubs accumulate even more money because you don't allow them to spend it?

They can spend it, or use it to reduce ticket prices, food prices, feed back into local sports and communitites.

SpurtingLesbian · June 17, 2015

Jacko93 said:
They can spend it.

But you're on about limiting what they can pay be it a transfer or wages?

Jacko93 said:
or use it to reduce ticket prices, food prices, feed back into local sports and communitites.

Why would they do that? they are companies.
They exist to make money, to expand and be successful in comparison to other Clubs. Why would they just give their profits away?

The only way any of this would work would be to ban the private ownership of Clubs, have all clubs owned by the fans, which is never going to happen. Even if it did happen, some Clubs would be vastly better off than others who would have no way of levelling the playing field by having investors put money into the club. It would be even more unfair than it is now. All clubs would be fixed at their financial level with no way of moving up or down.