Transfer Thread 2022/23

[LDNMagic90]

I can’t believe Fulham are getting Palhinha

[stormi]

Chelsea are 100% the worst run club in London. One last transfer window of suffering window until Marina Granovskaia is finally gone.

Nah you guys have things cooking in the background, getting Lukaku off the books is the priority and then the dominoes fall.

Spending another £100m on Nkunku or £60+m on Raheem Sterling is not cooking

[LDNMagic90]

Chelsea are 100% the worst run club in London. One last transfer window of suffering window until Marina Granovskaia is finally gone.

Nah you guys have things cooking in the background, getting Lukaku off the books is the priority and then the dominoes fall.

Spending another £100m on Nkunku or £60+m on Raheem Sterling is not cooking

Yeah I’m not sure about slapping 100m on Nkunku (I do really like him as a player) is the move. After Lukaku I’d wanna be more savvy with signings.

I’ve seen you guys are interested in Ait-Nouri he’ll be a decent squad option to challenge Chilwell.
I heard you guys are after

[SgtPepper]

Honestly I can't see anyone taking Vestergaard off our hands. Fabio looks decent in the reviews I've been reading since you mentioned him.

Just seen that Haaland - despite a transfer fee of just £52m - has a £193m commitment over the 5 years. His agent Raiola got £26m and his father (as agent) £17m. These fees in general need investigating. They are obscene.

The Haaland wages+fees seem relatively reasonable, because he breaks even on 200M for City with 66 goals over the 5 years. Given his goalscoring record it's more likely he does it in half the time or less. I think his face value transfer price is too high but over the contract duration the net value is realizable and might earn City a surplus (ignoring contract upgrades or extensions later), and the upfront cost is also probably subsidized by a shoe deal. This is a relatively reasonable deal considering the last players in the ballpark are Neymar for 200+M (deep overpay) and city's last purchase (Grealish for 100+M another deep overpay); it's clear Haaland is a different class than those guys. He's the first galactico class purchase by the club since De Bruyne too.

In other words Haaland's dad and Raiola could have probably negotiated for a much larger fee (by 100+M more) and kept it reasonable in the interest of Haaland actually integrating and peaking in City's squad. The timing of his contract with respect to Guardiola also suggests the latter wasn't very important compared to Haaland's relationship with the club.

[HIF]

Honestly I can't see anyone taking Vestergaard off our hands. Fabio looks decent in the reviews I've been reading since you mentioned him.

Just seen that Haaland - despite a transfer fee of just £52m - has a £193m commitment over the 5 years. His agent Raiola got £26m and his father (as agent) £17m. These fees in general need investigating. They are obscene.

The Haaland wages+fees seem relatively reasonable, because he breaks even on 200M for City with 66 goals over the 5 years. Given his goalscoring record it's more likely he does it in half the time or less. I think his face value transfer price is too high but over the contract duration the net value is realizable and might earn City a surplus (ignoring contract upgrades or extensions later), and the upfront cost is also probably subsidized by a shoe deal. This is a relatively reasonable deal considering the last players in the ballpark are Neymar for 200+M (deep overpay) and city's last purchase (Grealish for 100+M another deep overpay); it's clear Haaland is a different class than those guys. He's the first galactico class purchase by the club since De Bruyne too.

In other words Haaland's dad and Raiola could have probably negotiated for a much larger fee (by 100+M more) and kept it reasonable in the interest of Haaland actually integrating and peaking in City's squad. The timing of his contract with respect to Guardiola also suggests the latter wasn't very important compared to Haaland's relationship with the club.

Shoe deals are on top of salary and have no relation to the club. 54m is reasonable it's the money that agents take that is hurting the game. That money is now out of the system. As for the rest you clearly have a madrid-centric view of football and undervalue other players.

[SgtPepper]

Hahaha, I never wanted Madrid to sign Haaland due to how Jovic and Odeegard worked out. I've mentioned that often. Too much bust risk with respect to Madrid's structure. But as a sale with respect to the European market all that holds up.

[wco81]

Honestly I can't see anyone taking Vestergaard off our hands. Fabio looks decent in the reviews I've been reading since you mentioned him.

Just seen that Haaland - despite a transfer fee of just £52m - has a £193m commitment over the 5 years. His agent Raiola got £26m and his father (as agent) £17m. These fees in general need investigating. They are obscene.

The Haaland wages+fees seem relatively reasonable, because he breaks even on 200M for City with 66 goals over the 5 years. Given his goalscoring record it's more likely he does it in half the time or less. I think his face value transfer price is too high but over the contract duration the net value is realizable and might earn City a surplus (ignoring contract upgrades or extensions later), and the upfront cost is also probably subsidized by a shoe deal. This is a relatively reasonable deal considering the last players in the ballpark are Neymar for 200+M (deep overpay) and city's last purchase (Grealish for 100+M another deep overpay); it's clear Haaland is a different class than those guys. He's the first galactico class purchase by the club since De Bruyne too.

In other words Haaland's dad and Raiola could have probably negotiated for a much larger fee (by 100+M more) and kept it reasonable in the interest of Haaland actually integrating and peaking in City's squad. The timing of his contract with respect to Guardiola also suggests the latter wasn't very important compared to Haaland's relationship with the club.

I'm trying to understand the economics for City.

They already go deep into the UCL knockoff round and presumably they sell out Ethihad for every match they play. Probably get high TV ratings for their matches, especially against other top EPL clubs.

So Haaland is unlikely to increase revenues that much for the club?

Maybe he takes them to the UCL Final consistently and maybe each additional UCL match in the knockout stage is worth millions or even tens of millions.

He will sell a lot of jerseys but he's not David Beckham unless he sets the EPL and UCL on fire immediately with his play. I guess a Ballon d'Or season or two will raise his profile, though he's pretty well-known to futbol fans already, but maybe he becomes a superstar and becomes known to more casual fans?

BTW does the player get any of the jersey sales revenues or does the club reap all the profits from sales of jerseys of all their players?

There was a good chance that City were going to win 3 or 4 EPL titles in the next 5 years anyways. Maybe if Haaland performs as many hope, City just runs away with the title the next 5 years, never comes close to being challenged like they were this past season.

But if the league title has no suspense, does that lead to greater TV ratings and more revenues? At least if 1 or 2 other clubs were contending for the title, matches involving the top clubs would draw more interest, whereas if City takes any suspense out of the title race, fans may lose interest in watching or attending some individual matches.

The UCL is the one thing that City hasn't been able to crack since Guardiola took over. So maybe Haaland gets them over the top but again, I don't know that playing a couple more UCL matches, in the quarter/semi/final matches would add that much to City's revenues?


Or is it that the deep-pocketed City owners don't care about whether the big investment in Haaland produces a good return, they can afford to fund everything and they don't have to generate more revenues?

I guess the way EPL has evolved, only rich foreign-owned clubs are going to be contending for EPL and UCL titles for the foreseeable future. Yes top clubs in other European leagues are in a similar situation, very top-heavy, though not as many Arab sheiks and Russian Oligarch owners. And to a lesser extent, American private equity investors.

[LDNMagic90]

Honestly I can't see anyone taking Vestergaard off our hands. Fabio looks decent in the reviews I've been reading since you mentioned him.

Just seen that Haaland - despite a transfer fee of just £52m - has a £193m commitment over the 5 years. His agent Raiola got £26m and his father (as agent) £17m. These fees in general need investigating. They are obscene.

The Haaland wages+fees seem relatively reasonable, because he breaks even on 200M for City with 66 goals over the 5 years. Given his goalscoring record it's more likely he does it in half the time or less. I think his face value transfer price is too high but over the contract duration the net value is realizable and might earn City a surplus (ignoring contract upgrades or extensions later), and the upfront cost is also probably subsidized by a shoe deal. This is a relatively reasonable deal considering the last players in the ballpark are Neymar for 200+M (deep overpay) and city's last purchase (Grealish for 100+M another deep overpay); it's clear Haaland is a different class than those guys. He's the first galactico class purchase by the club since De Bruyne too.

In other words Haaland's dad and Raiola could have probably negotiated for a much larger fee (by 100+M more) and kept it reasonable in the interest of Haaland actually integrating and peaking in City's squad. The timing of his contract with respect to Guardiola also suggests the latter wasn't very important compared to Haaland's relationship with the club.

I'm trying to understand the economics for City.

They already go deep into the UCL knockoff round and presumably they sell out Ethihad for every match they play. Probably get high TV ratings for their matches, especially against other top EPL clubs.

So Haaland is unlikely to increase revenues that much for the club?

Maybe he takes them to the UCL Final consistently and maybe each additional UCL match in the knockout stage is worth millions or even tens of millions.

He will sell a lot of jerseys but he's not David Beckham unless he sets the EPL and UCL on fire immediately with his play. I guess a Ballon d'Or season or two will raise his profile, though he's pretty well-known to futbol fans already, but maybe he becomes a superstar and becomes known to more casual fans?

BTW does the player get any of the jersey sales revenues or does the club reap all the profits from sales of jerseys of all their players?

There was a good chance that City were going to win 3 or 4 EPL titles in the next 5 years anyways. Maybe if Haaland performs as many hope, City just runs away with the title the next 5 years, never comes close to being challenged like they were this past season.

But if the league title has no suspense, does that lead to greater TV ratings and more revenues? At least if 1 or 2 other clubs were contending for the title, matches involving the top clubs would draw more interest, whereas if City takes any suspense out of the title race, fans may lose interest in watching or attending some individual matches.

The UCL is the one thing that City hasn't been able to crack since Guardiola took over. So maybe Haaland gets them over the top but again, I don't know that playing a couple more UCL matches, in the quarter/semi/final matches would add that much to City's revenues?


Or is it that the deep-pocketed City owners don't care about whether the big investment in Haaland produces a good return, they can afford to fund everything and they don't have to generate more revenues?

I guess the way EPL has evolved, only rich foreign-owned clubs are going to be contending for EPL and UCL titles for the foreseeable future. Yes top clubs in other European leagues are in a similar situation, very top-heavy, though not as many Arab sheiks and Russian Oligarch owners. And to a lesser extent, American private equity investors.

Man City don’t need to rely on any other investment other than their owner's. The owners jumped in the game and did something that was pretty much never done in football. They ended up selling their stadium rights for a ton of money and a shirt sponsor that cost a ton of money, all of which is owned by the same family so it keeps the money circulating in their family. There’s also other sponsorships that the owners set up that are a bit dodgy. The FA changed the rules recently which pretty much makes no other team able to do the same things.

It’s the perfect way to stay on top forever, they’ve become self sustained because of that pretty much. So when it came to Haaland it was widely reported only a select few clubs in the world could afford his total package, Man City being one of them.

[SgtPepper]

^^I'll share some big picture football/club strategy perspectives rather than dive into the financial details of pricing and valuation) because your confusion seems to be about issues at that level.
-Player's image rights are a category that is negotiated within contracts with clubs. For example CR7 at one point had 50% image rights ownership.
-The price floor of a player's valuation is their footballing impact; the price ceiling is usually their football value+brand value+age curve+inflation. The brand value is demeaned into shirt sales by the press, but think of the player's ability to reach a global audience and sell garbage via shirt sales, museum tickets, special matches, events, and all the other bull that comes with being a celebrity who can influence millions of people into buying things over an expected career.
-This brings me to the most counterintuitive point about European soccer: Most clubs earn much more money through global brand ops (and then use a portion of that income for their annual transfer and wage budget) than via sporting success. The difference in earnings between the CL winner and the runner up is ~3M, and when Chelsea won it they got ~75M. That's half a Grealish. But annually the richest clubs bring between 200m-almost 1B running themselves like Disney due to the global reach of their fanbase (and really incompetent financial regulation in England and Spain which will pass a lot of their league's and clubs' growth to specific investors). Unlike US sports like football and basketball, Euro soccer makes more money from it's global fanbase than local. That's also one driver for ESL threats.
-There's also the portfolio management skew Ldn mentioned with these sugar daddies running their clubs as pure growth businesses (like Chelsea and the Saudi franchises) without the traditional need to show a financial return to the owner. So that means the owners incentives were very different than FFP. There were 2 weird consequences of this. One is that this category of clubs could drive prices up in the transfer market a lot higher since their effective budget was much higher; 200M is ultimately just 20% of the true effective budget used by some of these clubs while to most clubs that 200+% of their feasible budget. The biggest consequence, though, is that these clubs are far less likely to go into administration or become prey to hostile investors in the way other public or traditional clubs would. So this explains why big clubs aligned for and against the European super league to an extent as well.
-The brand development point also explains some of these overpriced doomed signings. If you are a cash rich club who is certain your club cannot be set up to win the CL within that season, the best way to develop the brand that year is to get a famous name that can become a historic reference. Hence Neymar 200+M at a time when PSG wasn't close to the CL and Grealish 100+M who is famous for the sheer price and the Kane snub. I think the Haaland deal must have been confirmed under wraps last year with the Mahrez party boat tour for City's decisions to make sense.

[wco81]

I know Beckham jersey sales were huge in Asia for instance.

But do Grealish or Salah or now Haaland move as much product there?

Doesn't seem they would.

Yes the super clubs have huge revenues through global brands and such but look at the situation with Barca. They are or at least were a few years ago one of the top clubs in revenues but they still outspent their revenues and don't have backers with oil or kleptocrat money to backstop all the extravagant spending.

[HIF]

^^I'll share some big picture football/club strategy perspectives rather than dive into the financial details of pricing and valuation) because your confusion seems to be about issues at that level.
-Player's image rights are a category that is negotiated within contracts with clubs. For example CR7 at one point had 50% image rights ownership.
-The price floor of a player's valuation is their footballing impact; the price ceiling is usually their football value+brand value+age curve+inflation. The brand value is demeaned into shirt sales by the press, but think of the player's ability to reach a global audience and sell garbage via shirt sales, museum tickets, special matches, events, and all the other bull that comes with being a celebrity who can influence millions of people into buying things over an expected career.
-This brings me to the most counterintuitive point about European soccer: Most clubs earn much more money through global brand ops (and then use a portion of that income for their annual transfer and wage budget) than via sporting success. The difference in earnings between the CL winner and the runner up is ~3M, and when Chelsea won it they got ~75M. That's half a Grealish. But annually the richest clubs bring between 200m-almost 1B running themselves like Disney due to the global reach of their fanbase (and really incompetent financial regulation in England and Spain which will pass a lot of their league's and clubs' growth to specific investors). Unlike US sports like football and basketball, Euro soccer makes more money from it's global fanbase than local. That's also one driver for ESL threats.
-There's also the portfolio management skew Ldn mentioned with these sugar daddies running their clubs as pure growth businesses (like Chelsea and the Saudi franchises) without the traditional need to show a financial return to the owner. So that means the owners incentives were very different than FFP. There were 2 weird consequences of this. One is that this category of clubs could drive prices up in the transfer market a lot higher since their effective budget was much higher; 200M is ultimately just 20% of the true effective budget used by some of these clubs while to most clubs that 200+% of their feasible budget. The biggest consequence, though, is that these clubs are far less likely to go into administration or become prey to hostile investors in the way other public or traditional clubs would. So this explains why big clubs aligned for and against the European super league to an extent as well.
-The brand development point also explains some of these overpriced doomed signings. If you are a cash rich club who is certain your club cannot be set up to win the CL within that season, the best way to develop the brand that year is to get a famous name that can become a historic reference. Hence Neymar 200+M at a time when PSG wasn't close to the CL and Grealish 100+M who is famous for the sheer price and the Kane snub. I think the Haaland deal must have been confirmed under wraps last year with the Mahrez party boat tour for City's decisions to make sense.

I don't think you understand as much about football as you think you do. You also confuse football with a few rich clubs, I don't know if you're American but that would make sense because of the completely different sports set up, if you are European I don't understand it.

[HIF]

I reckon Aguerd is a great purchase by the hammers.

[LDNMagic90]

I know Beckham jersey sales were huge in Asia for instance.

But do Grealish or Salah or now Haaland move as much product there?

Doesn't seem they would.

Yes the super clubs have huge revenues through global brands and such but look at the situation with Barca. They are or at least were a few years ago one of the top clubs in revenues but they still outspent their revenues and don't have backers with oil or kleptocrat money to backstop all the extravagant spending.

I think Haaland and Salah generate a lot of sales around the world, I would imagine their jerseys being popular in Asia. I'm not sure about Grealish, but for the last 2 years he has been pushed out as the new Beckham in terms of image, so he will get shirt sales. He's also Gucci's ambassador which has nothing to do with football, but like Beckham a casual will see him on a billboard, then research them and probably end up following the team because of that and buy their shirt.

Barca are a brilliant example of not going overboard with spending, no matter who you are (maybe minus City, Newcastle and PSG). Signing the players they did, was never smart... However, Barca are still finding a privilege in the situation their in. They are still grabbing players, fair enough its through swap deals and free transfers, but they are not getting punished for their financial situation. Governing boards won't punish these elite teams, they want them to stay on top for a reason. They bring revenue to their leagues, just from their name alone.

I just feel sorry for teams like Portsmouth, Bolton, Parma and Bordeaux. These teams are getting punished for their financial situation, which is not even near as bad as Barca, but you know the leagues these teams represent don't give a toss about them.

[LDNMagic90]

Alright guys, some news!

Nathan Collins will hold talks with Wolves in the next day or so.
Arsenal will beat Barca to Raphinha, Barca can't facilitate the deal.
Arsenal also will sign Gabriel Jesus
Belotti is wanted by Brighton, however he wants to stay in Italy or go to Monaco

[LDNMagic90]

Hearing Chelsea spoke to Everton about Richarlison something around money and one of or both Pulisic and Hudson-Odoi.

[mas1977]

It's reported that Ajax and Borussia Dortmund are close to a deal for Ajax striker Haller. Dortmund has offered 33M, Ajax is reportedly looking for 40M. It's expected that a deal will be closed sometime this week.

With the money Ajax would like to sign Bergwijn, Brobbey and Wijndal.

EDIT: Several sources say Haller to Dortmund is a done deal for 35M

[LDNMagic90]

It's reported that Ajax and Borussia Dortmund are close to a deal for Ajax striker Haller. Dortmund has offered 33M, Ajax is reportedly looking for 40M. It's expected that a deal will be closed sometime this week.

With the money Ajax would like to sign Bergwijn, Brobbey and Wijndal.

EDIT: Several sources say Haller to Dortmund is a done deal for 35M

Ajax are getting completely raided and thats ok because that happens to them every other season or so. I'm surprised they kept most of those players for so long tbh I'm impressed.

Anyway Ajax will produce more 30m+ players to sell in the next 2 seasons, I can see Rensch being sold in 2 years or so.

[mas1977]

It's reported that Ajax and Borussia Dortmund are close to a deal for Ajax striker Haller. Dortmund has offered 33M, Ajax is reportedly looking for 40M. It's expected that a deal will be closed sometime this week.

With the money Ajax would like to sign Bergwijn, Brobbey and Wijndal.

EDIT: Several sources say Haller to Dortmund is a done deal for 35M

Ajax are getting completely raided and thats ok because that happens to them every other season or so. I'm surprised they kept most of those players for so long tbh I'm impressed.

Anyway Ajax will produce more 30m+ players to sell in the next 2 seasons, I can see Rensch being sold in 2 years or so.

I don't expect much more outgoing transfers this window. There are rumours about Anthony and Martinez, but Ajax has no reason whatsoever to sell them now. They have plenty of cash already and the players have long contracts. Anthony they'll probably sell next year, they'll be hoping for a good WC.

I'll see Tagliafico leaving if there is interest. Other than that I only expect some incoming transfers.

About Rensch, his debut year was great, but last season was so so. If he can bounce back then he can easily replace Mazraoui. He is still very young. I have high hopes for him.

[LDNMagic90]

It's reported that Ajax and Borussia Dortmund are close to a deal for Ajax striker Haller. Dortmund has offered 33M, Ajax is reportedly looking for 40M. It's expected that a deal will be closed sometime this week.

With the money Ajax would like to sign Bergwijn, Brobbey and Wijndal.

EDIT: Several sources say Haller to Dortmund is a done deal for 35M

Ajax are getting completely raided and thats ok because that happens to them every other season or so. I'm surprised they kept most of those players for so long tbh I'm impressed.

Anyway Ajax will produce more 30m+ players to sell in the next 2 seasons, I can see Rensch being sold in 2 years or so.

I don't expect much more outgoing transfers this window. There are rumours about Anthony and Martinez, but Ajax has no reason whatsoever to sell them now. They have plenty of cash already and the players have long contracts. Anthony they'll probably sell next year, they'll be hoping for a good WC.

I'll see Tagliafico leaving if there is interest. Other than that I only expect some incoming transfers.

About Rensch, his debut year was great, but last season was so so. If he can bounce back then he can easily replace Mazraoui. He is still very young. I have high hopes for him.

I guess Ajax will if the players want out, it's a dangerous game having players not wanting to be on a team and also they could get an offer that Ajax deem too good to be true. I do get your point though there's no immediate need to sell though.

I know Tagliafico had interest in the prem a few teams were looking at him, but thats gone completely cold. I've wondered for years why he never got a move to the prem...

Ah yeah Rensch sounds like most young players being inconsistent at the start of their careers, I'm very high on him as a player.

[stormi]

Richarlison stinks man