Summer Transfer chat

[Jute]

Sunderland allegedly in for Christie according to Scotsman. Just have to be straight cash for McKenna.

[Ten Caat]

Given the length of the deal we can pretty much demand what we like unless there is a set release fee. I don't think Celtic can afford him at the moment 2bh.

 

I disagree. Celtic have tens of millions in the bank and they could go out and pay £10million tomorrow for a player if they so desired. The problem that Rodgers has is that their board try to play hardball with selling clubs in order to get Player X as cheaply as possible.

 

This strategy has paid dividends in the past as clubs in Scotland especially have rolled over to Celtic in the transfer market and had their collective bellies tickled. Hibs have done Scottish clubs a huge service by finally having the guts to stand up to Celtic and refusing to sell a player at less than what they believe him to be worth.

 

If Celtic really do want McKenna they'll have to pay what we ask. They CAN afford it

[CvB]

Except that's nonsense, as outlined in what I posted above. Do you genuinely think that the huns and tims regularly command significant fees for players that we'd say our no better than average because clubs in England are stupid? Or is it a conspiracy? Or they're doing it because it's the fashionable thing to do (pay elevated fees) down South.

 

A player is valued at what someone is willing to pay for them. If we had offered Maynard £20K for 5 years, then that is what we have valued him at because that was what we were willing to pay for him at the renewal of contract or purchase time. Whether or not somebody else is trying to buy him or not is irrelevant. But you missed the key part: there are two types of player, one that we want to keep and one that we don't. If we want to keep Maynard, then £5M is the minimum we'd expect a club to pay for him as that's what we are willing to invest on him. That value will reduce as the contract expires. If we don't want to keep Maynard, then we'd accept less than £5M in order to get that cost off our books. But your point doesn't work, because we're talking about players that parent teams do want, and so do other teams, which begins the bidding process. You also rarely get extreme examples like you mention precisely because transfers are wages linked (you don't want to pay someone significantly more than their peers).

 

I was thinking about that the other night as I contemplated how the fuck somebody (Wigan) valued Windass at however many millions.

I do actually believe that the fact that they are playing for celtic or rangers adds a million or two onto their transfer fee because of who they are, because of how they are marketed to the world and because the rest of us clubs are seen as an irrelevance.

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

Of course it does CvB and is much more significant than what his current wages are.

 

When a club makes a bid for a player they base that bid on what THEY think the player is worth and what they think they can get away with paying for him, they don't ask his current club what his wages are before deciding what his contract is worth, that bit is irrelevant.

 

Clubs in England know that they can take the piss when they bid for a player from us, Hibs, Hearts etc because we have no money.  When they try to buy a hun or tim player they know that they have to pay a couple of million or they won't sell. End of.

[RicoS321]

I was thinking about that the other night as I contemplated how the fuck somebody (Wigan) valued Windass at however many millions.

I do actually believe that the fact that they are playing for celtic or rangers adds a million or two onto their transfer fee because of who they are, because of how they are marketed to the world and because the rest of us clubs are seen as an irrelevance.

 

You didn't consider that Windass had a contract until 2021 at a large (comparatively speaking - certainly double McKenna's) salary? I'm not making stuff up, I assumed this was an acknowledged fact that follows logic? You think that a buying club will accept perceived standing in the Scottish game as a benchmark for valuation? Do you think a player that is at Rangers or Celtic will accept £3K per week if the club are asking for £5M for them or would they be straight onto their agent arranging a massive salary increase if they don't move (in Windass' case)? I accept that there might be some uplift in value by being at a bigger club, but nobody is offering £1-2M more for Tavernier or Windass based on club reputation - why in the world would they do that when they're in a free market system and they can just by the next best Windass from some other club? It defies basic logic. Nor does it answer why any number of championship or league one teams can also command large fees for players who also happen to get paid larger salaries. Valuation is arrived at, it's not plucked out of the air (apart from Tommy Wright). Most transfers are not for players where there are no other similar available options - obviously when you reach the top end of the game then you occasionally get astronomical fees - so the notion that anyone would pay over the odds because "we are the people" or something is silly. Agents are involved, rough salary is known by both sides, players know their own value based on what they're being paid (otherwise they'd have asked for more) and above that baseline there are a few other factors based on how desperate either party is. This is completely evidenced by the general steadiness of fees in and around the Scottish and lower English leagues and is just a general function of any market based system. Nobody goes in wildly inflating prices, and fees are historically in line with wages unless someone is an absolute superstar or a rich club desperately wants an individual at any cost. We're talking about the median here, not any outliers, there are some obvious examples that flout the general rules.

 

 

[baggy89]

Except that's nonsense, as outlined in what I posted above. Do you genuinely think that the huns and tims regularly command significant fees for players that we'd say our no better than average because clubs in England are stupid? Or is it a conspiracy? Or they're doing it because it's the fashionable thing to do (pay elevated fees) down South.

 

A player is valued at what someone is willing to pay for them. If we had offered Maynard £20K for 5 years, then that is what we have valued him at because that was what we were willing to pay for him at the renewal of contract or purchase time. Whether or not somebody else is trying to buy him or not is irrelevant. But you missed the key part: there are two types of player, one that we want to keep and one that we don't. If we want to keep Maynard, then £5M is the minimum we'd expect a club to pay for him as that's what we are willing to invest on him. That value will reduce as the contract expires. If we don't want to keep Maynard, then we'd accept less than £5M in order to get that cost off our books. But your point doesn't work, because we're talking about players that parent teams do want, and so do other teams, which begins the bidding process. You also rarely get extreme examples like you mention precisely because transfers are wages linked (you don't want to pay someone significantly more than their peers).

 

I already agreed that a large part of a transfer fee is a players current "package" however that is not  the one deciding factor. As has been said some will be the package being offered (what is said player worth to the buying team?), some will be future sell on potential, some will be what he is worth in potential prize money to both clubs, and some will be the bargaining position of the selling club.

 

Or are we suggesting that Scott Brown was on £42k per week at hibs in 2007. Or even that John Stones was on £450K per week at Everton?

[rocket_scientist]

A footballer is "worth" what he gets paid by his current employer.

 

He is "worth" whatever a buying club and selling club agree as a transfer fee for him.

 

He will then be "worth" what his next employer pays him.

 

There are no rules of thumb or exceptions to these facts of life, other than what is written is any contracts (already agreed between the player and his employer) e.g. sell-ons, transfer fee percentage bonus etc. An asset gets sold at whatever the two parties agree as the consideration, assuming that the asset itself (in the case of selling people) is happy with the terms. Not rocket science.

[RicoS321]

I already agreed that a large part of a transfer fee is a players current "package" however that is not  the one deciding factor. As has been said some will be the package being offered (what is said player worth to the buying team?), some will be future sell on potential, some will be what he is worth in potential prize money to both clubs, and some will be the bargaining position of the selling club.

 

Or are we suggesting that Scott Brown was on £42k per week at hibs in 2007. Or even that John Stones was on £450K per week at Everton?

 

The bit in bold is the only bit that I'm arguing here, and we're in agreement. That is the largest factor in determining the players valuation. That is why in the majority of cases a player who is paid more (whether that be at Bolton, the huns, gretna, darlington or the tims) will command a larger fee than those paid less. That is all that I am arguing and all I continue to argue. Wages set the baseline for any transfer fee. That is the argument.

 

I don't know anything about John Stones but clearly Brown is an outlier. There was a huge scramble between the huns and tims to sign him with the huns assuming they had got him at one point. There was a large amount of money in the game at that point too, and Hibs youngsters were seen as a surefire bet. There hasn't been a transfer like it within the Scottish game since (maybe Craig Gordon, but he too was exceptional). As I said, the link between wages is the general rule, as can be proven by looking at the overwhelming majority of transfers.

 

Back to the baseline fee part. The baseline for a Tim or a Hun will always be far greater than ours because of wages. Over and above the baseline, is where they pay for percieved exceptional talent. That's what we're looking at with McKenna. We've salaried him at (at a guess) a maximum of £1M over the next 4 years. That's his baseline. Three times that would be an achievement, five times that unlikely (I'm not saying impossible, just unlikely). What is likely is that we'll try and get a future sell-on as that could be massive. What is also likely is that the minute McKenna joins a championship club his value will rise as they are paying him a much larger salary. If he's ace for that club then in turn they will use that salary as a baseline for a sell on. Just as if McKenna was a Tim youth product, he'd be on £15K per week now and they'd be looking at more than £10M for him as they are Tierney (who is a better player also, which helps). They'd be looking at McKenna prices for MacGregor, Forrest etc. who aren't exceptional but are on highish salaries compared with McKenna. 

[RicoS321]

A footballer is "worth" what he gets paid by his current employer.

 

He is "worth" whatever a buying club and selling club agree as a transfer fee for him.

 

He will then be "worth" what his next employer pays him.

 

There are no rules of thumb or exceptions to these facts of life, other than what is written is any contracts (already agreed between the player and his employer) e.g. sell-ons, transfer fee percentage bonus etc. An asset gets sold at whatever the two parties agree as the consideration, assuming that the asset itself (in the case of selling people) is happy with the terms. Not rocket science.

 

Yes, but we're talking about the gap between the current pay and what the next employer pays him. Some are suggesting that there is not a link between the two, whereas I'm suggesting that the link is absolute and for the majority of transfers the main consideration.

[rocket_scientist]

Yes, but we're talking about the gap between the current pay and what the next employer pays him. Some are suggesting that there is not a link between the two, whereas I'm suggesting that the link is absolute and for the majority of transfers the main consideration.

 

I don't think there's much to debate or anything really to dispute.

 

What the next employer values him at will determine what they offer the selling club as a transfer fee and what they offer the player in wages. The length of contract remaining is the biggest determinant of the transfer fee and whilst of course what he's getting paid currently is a big influence in the offer given, the selling club still as the right to negotiate or just say no without giving reason, if they run the contract down and want to keep him until contract-end.

[BigAl]

Fuck me, still peddling the myth

 

https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/celtic-have-bid-rejected-for-aberdeen-defender-scott-mckenna/

 

Where do these cunts get off 

[Ten Caat]

Fuck me, still peddling the myth

 

https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/celtic-have-bid-rejected-for-aberdeen-defender-scott-mckenna/

 

Where do these cunts get off 

 

I'm listening to the phone in right now. It's been the main topic of discussion. Your ordinary dhim supporter seems pretty underwhelmed at the thought but the pundits are all for it.....

 

Arseholes. I'd love know that knobend Keevins' thoughts on it. He has been sookin' the sevco boaby since the season began, no doubt he would be advocating that Gerrard nip in and pinch him off Celtic's toes...

[DantheDon]

I see Partick Thistle have signed Souleymane Coulibaly, I would have thought he would have been a good signing for us. Certainly managed plenty of goals at Killie and his wage demands cant be that high if hes gone to Partick.

[LA-Don]

I see Partick Thistle have signed Souleymane Coulibaly, I would have thought he would have been a good signing for us. Certainly managed plenty of goals at Killie and his wage demands cant be that high if hes gone to Partick.

 

Definitely an interesting one. Don’t remember much about him other than he scored a few cracking goals, and I’d have thought he could have done better than Thistle. I’m certainly not writing off Wilson but I’d have been more excited if we’d signed this guy. Him and Molumbu were two I’d love to have seen walk through our doors this summer.

[Lencarl]

Headline from the Daily Record today

 

Aberdeen kick out £3.5m Celtic bid for Scott McKenna and warn them he's not for sale

 

I smell shite 

 

[manc_don]

Especially as I doubt we'd turn that down.

[donsdaft]

We better have turned that down.

 

Don't  deal with the tims for less that £15 million

 

 

 

 

 

Cash, up front

[RicoS321]

Fait bit of balls from the club if they have turned that type of offer down (I don't believe it like, would seem pretty high so early in negotiations, stinks of the tims trying to use the press to force the dons' hands by subtly informing the player of the bid).

 

We hold all the cairds here though. The Tims are getting restless about the perceived lack of signings because Rodgers hid behind it, and that will allow us to really put the pressure on them.

 

The only thing in their favour is that a lot of their fans won't see McKenna as a Tim-worthy signing anyway. Indeed, Commons (illiterate fuckwit) was on the radio this morning stating that McKenna wasn't ready for the Tims because Aberdeen "weren't a possession playing team", clearly showing that he hasn't seen Aberdeen once in the entire time McInnes has been at the club other than against the Tims and hasn't witnessed our "game management" strategy where we regularly forego attempting to score goals in order to see a game out. He couldn't even look at our basic stats over the last couple of years to back up his point, because it wouldn't have. He might have been correct (I don't agree), but not for the reasons he stated.

[tlg1903]

The club have made it known they want ten mill for him, not saying that's what he would defo go for but it's going to have to be at least double 3.5 mill before we start even thinking about negotiating.  I'm not sure McKenna will be phased, he seems very level headed and will jist want to play.  Reading between the lines I think he is quite happy to do another season at the dons before moving on.  Obviously I could be wrong but in terms of a career path it makes sense. 

[Stewart]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45271654

 

BBC reporting a bid of £3.5m has been turned down.

[BigAl]

Former Celtic forward Kris Commons on BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound

 

"He would be a good addition because Celtic have been crying out for a good centre-half.

 

He's not had a great deal of football - four international caps - so at the minute he's one for the future. In 12-18 months you'll probably see the best of him. He's on a long-term deal as well so he's in no rush.

 

Celtic aren't going to pay £8m, £9m, £10m for a centre-half that's 21 and was playing on loan at Ayr United just over a year ago. He got his experience in the lower leagues but this is a guy that's only played 30-plus games for Aberdeen. He's not played 300 games in competitive football."

 

And the above makes it crystal clear why McKenna will not end up at Celtic.

[RicoS321]

And the above makes it crystal clear why McKenna will not end up at Celtic.

 

Which part? I didn't think that were was too much issue with what he said there. They're not going to be paying £8M for him, they'd just tell us to stick it. Do you think we shouldn't be accepting less like? Do you think anyone would pay that? I'm not convinced, but I could be way wrong. I think £3.5M is a fairly hefty offer like.

 

It was comments about Aberdeen not being a passing team that were illiterate guff though, the little fuckwit. To think he is/has been a pundit at some point.

[CvB]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45271654

 

BBC reporting a bid of £3.5m has been turned down.

 

That's not a report. A report would have facts to back up statements, that's just cut and paste from weegie orientated guff like HITC and celtic blogs.

[RicoS321]

That's not a report. A report would have facts to back up statements, that's just cut and paste from weegie orientated guff like HITC and celtic blogs.

 

Yep, it's fucking awful once again from Chris McLaughlhun. You'd think that he'd have learned his lesson after being used by the hun in their approach for our manager.

 

There should at least be an indication of what he's done to verify the story and when he says "Aberdeen are adamant" what is meant by this. The BBC should hold themselves to very high standards and football shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that.

[Lencarl]

That's not a report. A report would have facts to back up statements, that's just cut and paste from weegie orientated guff like HITC and celtic blogs.

 

The BBC are always the last media outlet to report any football rumours, as said above they just copy and paste articles like everyone on Twitter or football forums do.

 

Most forums have the info posted hours before the BBC.