Other clubs transfer thread summer 2019 edition (Official: Madrid sign Hazard): Page 51 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

Other clubs transfer thread summer 2019 edition (Official: Madrid sign Hazard)

Meatwad

Claudius wrote:
We should be all over that. When Sokratis leaves next year, Saliba and Upamecano would be a young but high potential core.

the only leipzig CB i want is konate.

DiabyKungFu

Meatwad wrote:
Claudius wrote:
We should be all over that. When Sokratis leaves next year, Saliba and Upamecano would be a young but high potential core.

the only leipzig CB i want is konate.

Why? They have 4 CBs miles better than what we have.

Meatwad

Diaby KungFu wrote:
Meatwad wrote:
the only leipzig CB i want is konate.

Why? They have 4 CBs miles better than what we have.

i'm biased against CBs under 6'2".

Claudius

Meatwad wrote:
Claudius wrote:
We should be all over that. When Sokratis leaves next year, Saliba and Upamecano would be a young but high potential core.

the only leipzig CB i want is konate.

He’s also the most expensive when there are other high quality CBs. The not the best on their teams but still high quality young CBs like Upamecano and Diallo are the guys I’d roll the dice on

BWoolley

Upamecano is by far the best CB on that team. The only reason for that price could be that he’s refusing to sign a new contract. Else he should be worth over 50M easily. I’d have him here in a jiffy.

Bold Tone

In 2008, Wenger predicted 'the end of transfer fees' as free transfers maximise players' earnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/29/arsenal

That hasn't happened as paying is the only way to guarantee getting the player.
Also clubs responded with 5 year deals for stability but it's still in the interest of the players to not sign as Ramsey is much happier than Zaha.
Kane is another example as he could've been earning double what he is on now at a bigger club had he not extended

QuincyAbeyie

Klaus wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
They got 80m for Hernandez and 70 for Rodri. Add whatever they earn in general and I'm sure they're fine.

They'll be fine, but it's more because of stuff like this: https://deadspin.com/barcelona-and-valencias-goalkeeper-swap-looks-shady-as-1835909996

I may misunderstand you, but what does this have to do with Atletico? Have they done the same with player trades?

Klaus

Yeah, sorry, I meant to reply to Anzac. I accidentally quoted you instead and then followed up on your last sentence.

Claudius

Bold Tone wrote:
In 2008, Wenger predicted 'the end of transfer fees' as free contracts maximise players' earnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/29/arsenal

That hasn't happened as paying is the only way to guarantee getting the player.
Also clubs responded with 5 year deals for stability but it's still in the interest of the players to not sign as Ramsey is much happier than Zaha.
Kane is another example as he could've been earning double what he is on now at a bigger club had he not extended

Wenger was right. It came to pass. Our players like Ramsey just walk away.
Unfortunately, other clubs have managed to protect and grow their players’ values

mdgoonah41

Bold Tone wrote:
In 2008, Wenger predicted 'the end of transfer fees' as free contracts maximise players' earnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/29/arsenal

That hasn't happened as paying is the only way to guarantee getting the player.
Also clubs responded with 5 year deals for stability but it's still in the interest of the players to not sign as Ramsey is much happier than Zaha.
Kane is another example as he could've been earning double what he is on now at a bigger club had he not extended

i actually wonder if football contracts may start to go the way of NBA contracts. if you just look at the current landscape, take a player like mbappe. If he were free to sign a contract with any club and that club didn't have to pay a fee, he could command a huge sum over multiple years. he could also decide to only sign a 1 year contract and ask for even more money. when you sign a 5 year deal, unless your agent negotiates great escalators in the deal, your wages per week will probably remain fairly flat. lets say real madrid offered him £250k per week on a 5 year deal. with slight raises, what would he be making in year 4? £275k per week maybe? or, he could sign a 1 year deal for £250k per week today, and then next summer, he could sign another 1 year deal for £280k per week as revenues continue to swell and wages continue to rise across the board.

the risk for a player to sign a 1 year deal is they are not getting long term security in the event of major injury or form loss. for a young player in his early 20s, you'd imagine those would be less of a concern. for example, if mbappe breaks his leg tomorrow and he misses a season, its not like teams won't be interested in signing him next summer. for a lesser player or an older player at the end of their prime, the longer guaranteed deal might be a better business decision. but if i were mbappe or some other young elite talent, i wouldnt be eager to commit the next 5 years of my career to a club on a fairly flat wage scale

Bold Tone

Claudius wrote:
Bold Tone wrote:
In 2008, Wenger predicted 'the end of transfer fees' as free ~~contracts~~ transfers maximise players' earnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/29/arsenal

...

..

transfers

Bold Tone

mdgoonah41 wrote:
Bold Tone wrote:
In 2008, Wenger predicted 'the end of transfer fees' as free transfers maximise players' earnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/29/arsenal

That hasn't happened as paying is the only way to guarantee getting the player.
Also clubs responded with 5 year deals for stability but it's still in the interest of the players to not sign as Ramsey is much happier than Zaha.
Kane is another example as he could've been earning double what he is on now at a bigger club had he not extended

i actually wonder if football contracts may start to go the way of NBA contracts. if you just look at the current landscape, take a player like mbappe. If he were free to sign a contract with any club and that club didn't have to pay a fee, he could command a huge sum over multiple years. he could also decide to only sign a 1 year contract and ask for even more money. when you sign a 5 year deal, unless your agent negotiates great escalators in the deal, your wages per week will probably remain fairly flat. lets say real madrid offered him £250k per week on a 5 year deal. with slight raises, what would he be making in year 4? £275k per week maybe? or, he could sign a 1 year deal for £250k per week today, and then next summer, he could sign another 1 year deal for £280k per week as revenues continue to swell and wages continue to rise across the board.

the risk for a player to sign a 1 year deal is they are not getting long term security in the event of major injury or form loss. for a young player in his early 20s, you'd imagine those would be less of a concern. for example, if mbappe breaks his leg tomorrow and he misses a season, its not like teams won't be interested in signing him next summer. for a lesser player or an older player at the end of their prime, the longer guaranteed deal might be a better business decision. but if i were mbappe or some other young elite talent, i wouldnt be eager to commit the next 5 years of my career to a club on a fairly flat wage scale

mdgoonah41

like anything else, im sure it will take longer than it should to become a thing because "this is just the way we do things" seems to be how this sport is run

Claudius

I don’t see it.
What you are saying makes sense - reallocate value to the players away from the teams. However, if a player has a chance today to lock in 5 years of guaranteed income, then he will. Just gives him financial security now, which has a higher value than some hypothetical value in the future.

In addition the current system reduces friction. Imagine if every summer we had to re-sign Aubameyang, Lacazette and other top players. Would be so unsettling for the team and fans.

mdgoonah41

Claudius wrote:
I don’t see it.
What you are saying makes sense - reallocate value to the players away from the teams. However, if a player has a chance today to lock in 5 years of guaranteed income, then he will. Just gives him financial security now, which has a higher value than some hypothetical value in the future.

In addition the current system reduces friction. Imagine if every summer we had to re-sign Aubameyang, Lacazette and other top players. Would be so unsettling for the team and fans.

im not sure its as upsetting as having players constantly agitating for a move away. and again, i dont think every player would want to do a deal like this, just like every NBA player isnt looking to sign successive 1 year contracts. for example, an 18 year old who has made no money on youth contracts, getting a commitment of £25k per week for 4 years might be life changing. of course it would be. im thinking more about the elite superstars. i used mbappe as an example. every summer, from now until hes in his mid 30s, every top team in the world will be lining up to try and acquire his services. even if he has a "down" season, elite teams will still want him, and will still be willing to outdo each other to get him. if im him, im using that leverage. it also doesnt mean he has to move clubs every summer. but he can use the ability to move clubs to gain higher wages.

look at the flip side. imagine if we'd only signed mustafi on a 1 year deal. or ozil.

Bold Tone

It makes sense from the players point of view but the clubs would hate it and put up barriers/safety nets.
A perfect example is the 5 yr contracts as a reaction to the "final 2 year" rule.
The 3 yr short term contract is not offered to younger players entering their prime.
The blueprint for every player is to sign a 5-year contract between the age 19 and 21 then leave on a free transfer with a Flamini wage.
The worst that can happen is what Alexis and Ozil are going through (laughing all the way to the bank).

Tam

So how does that work in NBA then. Using your Mbappe example would it be the case that he moves at the end of his current contract and only signs for one season at his new team? Then that would start the cycle of short term contracts?

mdgoonah41

Tam wrote:
So how does that work in NBA then. Using your Mbappe example would it be the case that he moves at the end of his current contract and only signs for one season at his new team? Then that would start the cycle of short term contracts?

kevin durant is a good example. when he went to golden state, he signed a 1 year deal with a 1 year option (his player option) to extend. after the first year, he "declined" his option year, then signed the same type of deal again, 1 year with a 1 year player option. after his second season, he declined his player option and again signed a 1 year deal with a 1 year option. then this summer, he declined his player option and chose to go to brooklyn. due to the NBA's weird sign and trade rules, he technically signed with golden state and was then traded to brooklyn. but he effectively decided he was leaving because his contract was up, and golden state was able to trade him to the team he wanted to sign with.

so, he signed basically 3 one year contracts with golden state, then decided he wanted to go elsewhere. he now signed a 3 year contract with 1 player option after the third year, so it is essentially a 3 year deal. lebron james did similar things when he came back to cleveland.

from a team perspective, it is tough to plan long term. for the player, it allows them maximum leverage and power, both to go where they want to go, and also to pressure their team to stay competitive or they will leave. given how reliant some clubs are on transfer fees to stay afloat, it would be a huge change. this would probably only happen for the best players in the world, because they will have staying power consistently for the duration of their career. for younger players, or non-superstars, having the longer term guaranteed is probably better for them

Big Willie

Unless I'm mistaken the difference in the NBA is players under contract can not renew their contract before the contract is done even if the team and the player want.

mdgoonah41

Big Willie wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken the difference in the NBA is players under contract can not renew their contract before the contract is done even if the team and the player want.

there are rules around the specifics, but i know that teams can extend their own players if both sides agree. i know the OKC thunder extended russell westrbook's contract the summer that durant left, for example. he was still under contract, but they tacked on additional money and years. both sides had to agree to it.

« Previous Page Next Page »