Something doesn't have to be mass produced to have a market value. Market value is quite often an opinion. But I don't want to get all technical.

Lets say normal value instead, you look at the top strikers in Europe and they're all moved for around 20-30m (some significantly less), hence he's overpriced.

15% seems to flatter what they paid for him to be honest.

And not because Torres is crap, but because in all likelihood he'll remain just as injury-ridden as RvP. And by the way he's not a better striker than van Persie either.

Torres is great and at some point he'll be great for Chelsea for ten matches in a row, and then there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And then he'll get injured again or go off the boil.

I never said it has to be mass produced to have a market value if you read again what I wrote. I said the market value is what someone is worth, because to Chelsea he's worth 50m so that is the value. You admitted that Torres could well be worth it. So if he does win loads of trophies/gain 4th or whatever Chelsea's goals are, then he is worth the price. You don't put prices on league titles and European cups anyway and if you did then you would rake in 50 million easy (winnings money, more sponsorships, more fans buying stuff).

Anyway David Villa moved for 34 million, Ronaldo for way more. Look at Eto'o and Ibrahimovic. Massive money there.

And Torres isn't just another top striker. He is Torres, moving from a rival and a team that basically still needed him and a set of fans that loved him, in the January transfer window, proven in the Premier League with guaranteed shirt sales both in England and abroad.

If he was at Arsenal, i'd be furious if he went for between 20-30m quid.

Tony Montana wrote:

I said the market value is what someone is worth, because to Chelsea he's worth 50m so that is the value.

Point taken but you're rendering most uses of the term meaningless. Market value has to be able to be different from the price that is paid, otherwise why use the term at all?

The taxman isn't going to like it if I sell my car for a tin of beans, because that isn't "market value".

I think Torres would be a 50m player if he had a better appearance record. Last couple of seasons his league appearances have been in the low 20s. But I suppose we'll just have to see how he does.

When you're not paying from your own pocket, there is nothing called "overpaying".

Yeah, there is - it's just that generally people pay a value they themselves are comfortable with, and it's someone else - whether it be the taxman, your sainted mother or Arsene Wenger - who calls it "overpaying" because they would never pay that amount.

The whole thing is subjective but my subjective opinion is that Torres ain't worth 50m.

Seeing as Wenger assembled an entire team for less than £50m I think he's entitled to say that Chelsea overpaid. I also expect he's said similar for almost every transfer over the past five years.

Obviously if Torres won them the league or the CL then it would appear to be worth it but football has too many variables and relies on several players so you can't factor that when when the purchase is being made. No one player can define a club's success, unless you're Maradonna.

One way of looking at it is comparing prices of players of similar caliber or of those who went for a similar amount.

Other way is looking at the return on investment. Now, this is qualitative in nature, but when you've an unlimited budget, you look only from a footballing-result point of view. Arsene has to manage his team within a budget, so, he's never going to pay the same amount for a player, but, from Roman's point of view, the yardsticks are different.

Biggus wrote:

Hmm Klaus so you're saying that he's saying Chelsea are rattled and panicking that they may not win the CL nor qualify next year.

I'm saying they wanted to sell a lot of shirts.

Klaus, what about the owner desperately wants to see big superstars? And the fact that he wants to stay in Champions League? It's more about those two issues than shirts

Burnwinter wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

I said the market value is what someone is worth, because to Chelsea he's worth 50m so that is the value.

Point taken but you're rendering most uses of the term meaningless. Market value has to be able to be different from the price that is paid, otherwise why use the term at all?

The taxman isn't going to like it if I sell my car for a tin of beans, because that isn't "market value".

I think Torres would be a 50m player if he had a better appearance record. Last couple of seasons his league appearances have been in the low 20s. But I suppose we'll just have to see how he does.

Just to be clear my response was to Otfgoon although you do address my point...fair play.

But in response to you there is still only one Torres. If I buy a sony LCD TV from Currys for £1000 when most places would sell it for £900 then I am overpaying. But a Sony TV is mass produced.

If I buy a doughnut from an independent bakery for 3 quid then I am also overpaying. Sure, that particular doughnut is only made at that particular bakery but it is till a standard doughnut with the same ingredients give or take a herb or whatever. Most other places don't charge over a pound regardless of whether they're Krispy Kremes or from some random shop. £1.00 ish or less is market value. One ring doughnut is NOT worth 3.00 quid.

But you can only buy one Torres. Sure there are other strikers who are similar products but they have too many variables to be seen as the same product. Compare him to Suarez who Liverpool bought as a replacement. Torres is more marketable generally and he is proven in the Premier League. That has to be at least part of the reason Chelsea went for Torres and not Suarez. But those reasons are massive making the "products" too dissimilar.

Caligula wrote:

Klaus, what about the owner desperately wants to see big superstars? And the fact that he wants to stay in Champions League? It's more about those two issues than shirts

Like I said, if it was strictly a question about getting the best possible footballer they did a terrible job. It's about establishing a reputation in Spain more than anything else.

But Honda is not as good a player.

Kagawa on the other hand! Then again, he broke his metatarsal of course. But that was after they started negotiating for Torres.

Tony Montana wrote:

But you can only buy one Torres. Sure there are other strikers who are similar products but they have too many variables to be seen as the same product. Compare him to Suarez who Liverpool bought as a replacement. Torres is more marketable generally and he is proven in the Premier League. That has to be at least part of the reason Chelsea went for Torres and not Suarez. But those reasons are massive making the "products" too dissimilar.

Torres may not be the only striker who can help them qualify for 4th place though.

Anyways you keep going on about how he is worth it if he helps them qualify for the CL and/ or win the CL. What if his presence doesn't make that difference though just like his presence at Liverpool never made much difference, even at times when he played?

Rohit wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

But you can only buy one Torres. Sure there are other strikers who are similar products but they have too many variables to be seen as the same product. Compare him to Suarez who Liverpool bought as a replacement. Torres is more marketable generally and he is proven in the Premier League. That has to be at least part of the reason Chelsea went for Torres and not Suarez. But those reasons are massive making the "products" too dissimilar.

Torres may not be the only striker who can help them qualify for 4th place though.

Anyways you keep going on about how he is worth it if he helps them qualify for the CL and/ or win the CL. What if his presence doesn't make that difference though just like his presence at Liverpool never made much difference, even at times when he played?

There will be uncertainty in any transfer and whether it was truly a good one or not is something that can only be discussed with hundred percent certainty with the help of hind-sight.

In some cases, like, say, Nani, it looked like the player was going to be shipped up after failing to live up to the expectations when he stepped up and became, arguably, the team's most important player.

However, on the face value, you can not have a deal with lesser uncertainty than Torres. He's a proven goal-scorer in the Premier League, world class striker and also someone who can adequately replace an aging Drogba, who is probably their most important player. Yes, he can turn out to be a crock and he may not make a difference, but, at this moment, you can only judge him on his past achievements and what he can provide, in theory, to Chelsea and that is definitely worth spending some money. How much, that is open for debate.

I know the merits of having a striker as good as Torres for any team but there is no guarantee it will bring success and the accountability eventually lies with manager. They aren't only accountable for the results of the team but also the cost at which they fail because no one really cares about the cost for winning. It is certainly up for debate whether £ 50 million for Torres is money well spent or not and currently it should be impossible to assert that the price paid is the 'market price'.

When will people accept that the Torres transfer has nothing to do with market value and everything to do with winning trophies? There was no market established in the Torres transfer anyway. Chelsea just bid a high price, Liverpool couldn't believe their luck and shipped him out. Abramovich's priority is winning the Champions League and he will do that at any cost.

Ancelotti will not be held accountable for the price at which Torres was bought. I don't know why people get that idea. He will just be held accountable for results given the players at his disposal.

It's hard to talk about market value in football because you hardly ever see buyers and sellers bidding on a single player in an organized fashion. It's all over the place. What's market value for a top playmaker? Is it the 31m Euro that Barca bid for Fabregas? Or the higher figures Arsenal supporters demand for Fabregas? Or is it the 27m Euro that Real paid for Snjeider? What about the 18m Euro that Inter paid for Snjeider as he went on to win 5 trophies and lead his country to World Cup final?

Caligula wrote:

When will people accept that the Torres transfer has nothing to do with market value and everything to do with winning trophies?

But that's not true. Why would they spend £50 million on a 27-year-old striker whose main outstanding ability for the past few years has been to pick up injuries then? When they could have gotten pretty much any striker that doesn't belong to Barcelona for that kind of money? You win trophies with great players. You sell shirts with great names.