The Barclays Premier League Thread 2014/2015

[Nerf]

£50m for a player you let go on a free? That does sound ludicrous.

That's the way it works for players under 24. If the two clubs in question can't meet an agreement on reasonable compensation, it'll go to arbitration which will compensate what the player is worth plus the expenses of training said player. You suggested Sterling was worth £40m fifteen minutes ago, but £50m seems ridiculous to you?

[brenchill]

£50m for a player you let go on a free? That does sound ludicrous.

That's the way it works for players under 24. If the two clubs in question can't meet an agreement on reasonable compensation, it'll go to arbitration which will compensate what the player is worth plus the expenses of training said player. You suggested Sterling was worth £40m fifteen minutes ago, but £50m seems ridiculous to you?

You got any examples of this ever happening before? I think you'll get about £10m tops.

[The Lusophone]

And almost definitely won't happen.

And who the hell is expecting Ings to fetch Burnley as much as £7 million? All the figures I've seen, admittedly before January, talk about around £1 million at most.

[Matt]

I think £40m is about right, but his contract is dwindling down. At this rate, he won't be going for that.

That doesn't make a difference because he isn't 24+. If anything, it gives Liverpool more pulling power because we'd get ludicrous compensation if we let him walk for free in two years.

Unless he decided to go abroad in which case you'd get the precise total of fuck all.

[TCO]

They're not going to risk him walking after 2 years, going to Madrid, Barca or PSG for peanuts. If he wants out, he'll be sold in the summer.

[Hobo]

It's not surprising that the guy Liverpool signed because they offered the best compensation package when he was 14 would want good money six years later.

He'll sign eventually I'd say. I honestly think he's in the right place at the moment.

[Nerf]

I think £40m is about right, but his contract is dwindling down. At this rate, he won't be going for that.

That doesn't make a difference because he isn't 24+. If anything, it gives Liverpool more pulling power because we'd get ludicrous compensation if we let him walk for free in two years.

Unless he decided to go abroad in which case you'd get the precise total of fuck all.

Very true, but two years of Sterling playing his heart out for a move to Madrid on £35k per week? That's cheaper than flogging him and buying/paying a replacement.

And almost definitely won't happen.

And who the hell is expecting Ings to fetch Burnley as much as £7 million? All the figures I've seen, admittedly before January, talk about around £1 million at most.

The reason Liverpool pulled out for Ings was because they didn't want to pay the £7m compensation it'd cost them.

£50m for a player you let go on a free? That does sound ludicrous.

That's the way it works for players under 24. If the two clubs in question can't meet an agreement on reasonable compensation, it'll go to arbitration which will compensate what the player is worth plus the expenses of training said player. You suggested Sterling was worth £40m fifteen minutes ago, but £50m seems ridiculous to you?

You got any examples of this ever happening before? I think you'll get about £10m tops.

No, I don't, because it hasn't happened to a player on this scale before, but the regulations state that an independent body will decide the amount of compensation based on their value of the player. How anybody could value Raheem Sterling at £10m in two years time is beyond me.

Edit: Bear in mind that Sturridge apparently fetched a total of £9m for City six years ago, having made just 20 senior appearances.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Social Justice Nerf

[Matt]

Except Liverpool would be nuts not to accept £10m from I dunno, Man City, when the alternative would be to get nothing when he goes to Athletico, Juventus or Leverkusen.

[Gazz]

Well, it depends on what is considered as factors in a player's valuation. To me, most transfer fees are almost arbitary.

Liverpool will argue that he's the greatest thing since Pele and that he's worth a fuckton of money to them in lost revenue, merchandise etc. and whoever is buying him (if English) will counter with he's not worth hardly any transfer fee, that he's 'only' being earning £35k per week for the last three or four years and threaten to pull out and let him sign for a foreign team for nothing unless Liverpool accept a vastly reduced fee.

[Rich]

I would imagine that Real would be interested, pacey forward player with lots of flare is right up their alley.

[The Lusophone]

And almost definitely won't happen.

And who the hell is expecting Ings to fetch Burnley as much as £7 million? All the figures I've seen, admittedly before January, talk about around £1 million at most.

The reason Liverpool pulled out for Ings was because they didn't want to pay the £7m compensation it'd cost them.

I hate to be that guy but source?

Also you brought Sturridge from Chelsea for £12 million.

[Nerf]

Well, it depends on what is considered as factors in a player's valuation. To me, most transfer fees are almost arbitary.

Liverpool will argue that he's the greatest thing since Pele and that he's worth a fuckton of money to them in lost revenue, merchandise etc. and whoever is buying him (if English) will counter with he's not worth hardly any transfer fee, that he's 'only' being earning £35k per week for the last three or four years and threaten to pull out and let him sign for a foreign team for nothing unless Liverpool accept a vastly reduced fee.

That's where it gets dicey, and why I brought up the CIES' independent valuation of him at around £45m. It's really not a stretch to expect £50m for him in two years, given that the whole point of this FA regulation is "to seek fair market value."

And almost definitely won't happen.

And who the hell is expecting Ings to fetch Burnley as much as £7 million? All the figures I've seen, admittedly before January, talk about around £1 million at most.

The reason Liverpool pulled out for Ings was because they didn't want to pay the £7m compensation it'd cost them.

I hate to be that guy but source?

Also you brought Sturridge from Chelsea for £12 million.

Nothing concrete and I can't be arsed digging anything up right now, but that was the word going around in January when we approached him on a pre-contract.

And Chelsea bought Sturridge from City for £9m after a tribunal... like I said.

Edit: Furthermore, Sturridge at that point had 21 appearances and 5 goals for City and no international caps. Sterling already has 120 appearances, 22 goals and will have represented his country at two international tournaments by that point.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Social Justice Nerf

[Gazz]

Sturridge to Chelsea was £3.5m with £3m worth of appearence related add-ons.

[Nerf]

Sturridge to Chelsea was £3.5m with £3m worth of appearence related add-ons.

You're right on the initial figure, but it rose to £9m in add-ons in the end.

[Matt]

http://origin-www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1932749,00.html

3.5m up front, 2m based on appearances and 1m for international debut. So 6.5m.

I guess you're counting the sell on fee, but that's only relevant once you've been paid out for the player anyway

[Nerf]

http://origin-www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1932749,00.html

3.5m up front, 2m based on appearances and 1m for international debut. So 6.5m.

I guess you're counting the sell on fee, but that's only relevant once you've been paid out for the player anyway

Yeah, I counted the sell-on fee, which was another add on determined by the tribunal. Why wouldn't I count that?

[Matt]

Because no one ever really counts that since it's completely indeterminable. Raheem may never leave/leave on a free from wherever he signs so (assuming you get 15% of his next fee) you'd get fuck all extra, on the other hand if he continues to improve and goes for £60m in 5 years time, you get another £9m but you can't factor that in to your valuation at this point.

My guess is that a tribunal fee would be somewhere around £15m with a bit of that being based on winning the league/champions league. Plus 15% of any future transfer fee. Anything more would probably end up in CAS particularly with FFP rules in place.

[Matt]

In fact that's probably bring generous when you remember that it's a compensation for training fees. A good lawyer would probably be able to argue that nature not nurture is responsible for a large amount of Raheem's valuation and that at 22 after probably around 200 games, Liverpool have already reaped a fair share of their rewards

[Lineker]

Zzzzzzzz

[Nerf]

In fact that's probably bring generous when you remember that it's a compensation for training fees. A good lawyer would probably be able to argue that nature not nurture is responsible for a large amount of Raheem's valuation and that at 22 after probably around 200 games, Liverpool have already reaped a fair share of their rewards

This isn't the training fee compensation, it's two entirely different things.

This is worth the read if you have the time or inclination.