njligernj
Player Valuation: £15m
Anyone read Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski? Interesting read -- I'm in the middle of it right now.
They did a statistical study of transfers and found that the amount spent on transfers didn't have that much correlation with success -- however the amount spent on salaries had a very large correlation.
"In short, the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish; but what you pay for them in transfer fees doesn't seem to make much difference. (This suggests that, in general, it may be better to raise your players' pay than risk losing a couple of them and have to go out and buy replacements.)"
I obviously won't type out all the charts and numbers but it's interesting stuff and they put a lot of time and study into making their determinations.
"Any inefficient market is an opportunity for somebody. If most clubs are wasting most of their transfer money, then a club that spends wisely is going to outperform."
Well that sums us up to a tee.
The salary stuff is major food for thought as far as I'm concerned. If we have (for argument's sake, 10-15 million pounds to spend ... maybe by selling Yak and Yobo and a little bit from TV money) you could make an argument for not "buying" anyone but instead signing Pienaar (and extending Arteta) and maybe picking up the likes of Petrov (or Ballack or Cole if they'd come here which they probably wouldn't ... Ballack maybe). Regardless, I don't want to argue specifics players (Petrov, Ballack and Cole might not be good fits but you get the general idea). Arsenal have definitely gone this route -- they don't spend a huge amount on transfers (relative to their CL peers) but their wage bill is massive in order to retain the young talent Wenger has spotted. We can't spend as much as them but there is no reason we couldn't have toned down version of the same system.
That said, you can obviously pay players too much and you do have to worry about other players getting jealous and wanting raises too. However, as a general guiding strategy it does seem to make more sense than relying too heavily on transfers. Just common sense wise, yes Moyes has unearthed some gems, but losing Pienaar and then expecting him to find a suitable replacement for (say) 5 million is pushing our luck. Then he'll want to be paid too -- if he becomes as good as Pienaar then he might want as much.
Now, granted, if we don't have the money to pay then it's all moot. However that's where the strategy of not buying anyone (we bugger it up waiting until the last minute usually anyway) and using the money on salaries makes sense. Obviously you have to buy at some point, however sometimes the money might be better spent on salaries. In addition, the Arsenal model of buying young and waiting for them to develop might also be more valuable than buying relatively finished products for 10 mil +.
I know there is something of a phobia over this type of analysis in football -- there was the exact same phobia in baseball and then these "maths guys" started winning championships. Before you dismiss it I think reading the book is worth the time.
They did a statistical study of transfers and found that the amount spent on transfers didn't have that much correlation with success -- however the amount spent on salaries had a very large correlation.
"In short, the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish; but what you pay for them in transfer fees doesn't seem to make much difference. (This suggests that, in general, it may be better to raise your players' pay than risk losing a couple of them and have to go out and buy replacements.)"
I obviously won't type out all the charts and numbers but it's interesting stuff and they put a lot of time and study into making their determinations.
"Any inefficient market is an opportunity for somebody. If most clubs are wasting most of their transfer money, then a club that spends wisely is going to outperform."
Well that sums us up to a tee.
The salary stuff is major food for thought as far as I'm concerned. If we have (for argument's sake, 10-15 million pounds to spend ... maybe by selling Yak and Yobo and a little bit from TV money) you could make an argument for not "buying" anyone but instead signing Pienaar (and extending Arteta) and maybe picking up the likes of Petrov (or Ballack or Cole if they'd come here which they probably wouldn't ... Ballack maybe). Regardless, I don't want to argue specifics players (Petrov, Ballack and Cole might not be good fits but you get the general idea). Arsenal have definitely gone this route -- they don't spend a huge amount on transfers (relative to their CL peers) but their wage bill is massive in order to retain the young talent Wenger has spotted. We can't spend as much as them but there is no reason we couldn't have toned down version of the same system.
That said, you can obviously pay players too much and you do have to worry about other players getting jealous and wanting raises too. However, as a general guiding strategy it does seem to make more sense than relying too heavily on transfers. Just common sense wise, yes Moyes has unearthed some gems, but losing Pienaar and then expecting him to find a suitable replacement for (say) 5 million is pushing our luck. Then he'll want to be paid too -- if he becomes as good as Pienaar then he might want as much.
Now, granted, if we don't have the money to pay then it's all moot. However that's where the strategy of not buying anyone (we bugger it up waiting until the last minute usually anyway) and using the money on salaries makes sense. Obviously you have to buy at some point, however sometimes the money might be better spent on salaries. In addition, the Arsenal model of buying young and waiting for them to develop might also be more valuable than buying relatively finished products for 10 mil +.
I know there is something of a phobia over this type of analysis in football -- there was the exact same phobia in baseball and then these "maths guys" started winning championships. Before you dismiss it I think reading the book is worth the time.
