• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

General Wolves News

I’ll respond Wolfman don’t worry. I’m at work. I’d have to do research to see, for example Lukaku £13m but 10 years ago (so inflation) but had banged them in the season before at first team level, Rodrygo and Vinicius Jr for similar fees to Fabio but went to RM who have a bottomless pit of cash (or did) and they had also had first team success.

Plus a long list of other expensive teenagers
 
WolfMan said:
What figure wouldn't have been an overpayment then TT? You must have one in mind to say that we did overpay.
Click to expand...
Breaking my please make it stop request, but only fair I give you a response to a direct question.

Neto was 2 years older with similar first team experience at £16m and seen by many (me included) as too much at the time, so that seems a reasonable starting point. There are a couple of other factors to take into account firstly how is he viewed across the world of football, it's all very well Jeff trotting out generational talent, but how widely was that viewed? Linked to that was there any competition to sign him and if so at what level? Finally, I believe it has to be viewed relative to the size of club we are and particularly the budget we have. Largest fee paid against a backdrop of zero net spend last year and likely something similar this. It's a large % of 2 years budget for a gamble when at just turned 18 he could have turned into anything.

No more, I promise 😃
 
I've probably been Fabio's biggest cheerleader, but I think talk of being a generational talent and one of the world's best in his age group is over egging the pudding considerably, tbh. He's incredibly intelligent but I doubt he'll ever be technically good enough, or physically gifted enough, to become elite. I do think there's more to come, and that he'll score goals, but not convinced he's ever going to be world class in all honesty.
 
I know you lot hate stats but Fabio had our second best G+A over 90 behind Raul last season.
 
Tony Towner said:
Breaking my please make it stop request, but only fair I give you a response to a direct question.

Neto was 2 years older with similar first team experience at £16m and seen by many (me included) as too much at the time, so that seems a reasonable starting point. There are a couple of other factors to take into account firstly how is he viewed across the world of football, it's all very well Jeff trotting out generational talent, but how widely was that viewed? Linked to that was there any competition to sign him and if so at what level? Finally, I believe it has to be viewed relative to the size of club we are and particularly the budget we have. Largest fee paid against a backdrop of zero net spend last year and likely something similar this. It's a large % of 2 years budget for a gamble when at just turned 18 he could have turned into anything.

No more, I promise 😃
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response TT.

I think maybe the reason we seem to be disagreeing is because we are taking different factors into account.

Your first point about Neto, he was a relative unknown at the time we signed him. You can't say the same about Fabio. Google Fabio's name and there are articles from before we signed him about how he's breaking records in Portuguese youth football. One coach comparing him to Ronaldo when he was 15. Fabio scored 33 goals in 39 games playing for Porto's under 19's, when he was 16.

I'll give you Neto and Fabio had comparable first team experience when we signed them (very little), but their youth careers are worlds apart. Obviously when signing very young players, their youth careers are really the only thing you can go on.

So the idea we could have got Fabio for anywhere near 16m is fanciful IMO, it just wouldn't have happened. So if we couldn't have got him for anywhere 16m, should we have paid 35? This is where it seems the other factors come into play for you, i.e., our overall budget, the relative size of our club and the state of our playing squad.

This is where I actually agree with you, is it wise for Wolves at stage they are at, to be gambling 35m on potential when there are other areas of the team that need improving, or even other strikers that we could get for similar money that would have an instant impact? I would say no. So if that's the way you are defining whether we overpaid, we agree.

Presumably if a massive club had paid what we had, you wouldn't necessarily view that as an overpayment?

As PuntsWolf mentioned inflation, I looked up how much transfers have gone up over the years. There's a good website that tells you how much players would have cost in today's money taking into account transfer fee inflation (obvs that has far outpaced normal inflation)

Ronaldo cost Man U £17m in 2003, today that would have been £71m. Double what we paid for Fabio. Bearing in mind, Ronaldo had hardly played senior football at that time, just broke alot of records in youth football, just like Fabio. Fabio also had a better goals per minutes ratio in senior football at the same age as Ronaldo. People forget but Ronaldo wasn't that good for the first few years at Utd. People will say yes but it was obvious something was there, fair enough, but if he'd had stayed at that level, you'd have to had said that Utd had overpaid.

So basically we have paid half of what Utd paid for Ronaldo (taking into account transfer fee inflation), who had a nearly identical record to Fabio at the same age. If Fabio turns out to be half the player Ronaldo has been, I don't believe 35m was overpriced.
 
WolfMan said:
So basically we have paid half of what Utd paid for Ronaldo (taking into account transfer fee inflation), who had a nearly identical record to Fabio at the same age. If Fabio turns out to be half the player Ronaldo has been, I don't believe 35m was overpriced.
Click to expand...
That may, ultimately, turn out to be correct , but the real context for me is that there were a number of other areas that we really needed to strengthen and we chose to blow the best part of our budget on a complete unknown, albeit with potential. That is fine if you're a big six or are being bankrolled by a sheik but for us to do that was a dumb move , especially as our manager insisted on a small squad. Fabio took one of those spots.
 
Jasperwolf said:
That may, ultimately, turn out to be correct , but the real context for me is that there were a number of other areas that we really needed to strengthen and we chose to blow the best part of our budget on a complete unknown, albeit with potential. That is fine if you're a big six or are being bankrolled by a sheik but for us to do that was a dumb move , especially as our manager insisted on a small squad. Fabio took one of those spots.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
I’m sorry Wolfman but a lot of that is total bollocks.

Fabio and Ronaldo aren’t even remotely comparable. He wasn’t a world beater but he was still holding his own in a top 4 team. He’d also played a lot for Sporting the year before. Fabio looked out of his depth in a bottom half team, wasn’t getting a look in at Porto. Ronaldo also showed promise, pace, skill, technique. Fabio could be the most intelligent striker on the planet, but you still need the physical and technical attributes to back that up to become world class.


Regardless of what this inflation website says, £17m then was not £70m now.

Youth records are literally irrelevant. BAS was banging them in, Zele Ismail was the first £100m player, Chris Cornes was the best player in the academy ahead of Mark Davies, Kyle Bennett was winning player of the tournament every week in national competitions. Didn’t quite become world beaters did they?

You say we should pay more for Fabio than Neto because he scored a few as a kid? Bonkers. Neto they had seen was already good, had the tools to succeed, could come in and contribute. Fabio did not have the tools and could not contribute, was not already good.

Anyway

To go on what do I think we should have paid. Well, based on the £35m we’ve paid, the time, effort, risk, wages, detriment to the team. I think we need to get £50-60m (at current market value) to break even. He has to go at Jadon Sancho levels to make a reasonable profit.

So he needs to basically become one of the best strikers in world football to pay off. If he becomes a solid top half striker but not good enough for an elite club then we’re making an effectual loss. Or certainly a pointless venture.

On ability, what he brings to the table, risk element, short term effect on us £10-15m max. Chuck in the broken all the records in the world (guaranteed superstar nonsense) and you could maybe stretch to £20m. At least at those levels you can still turn a profit if he doesn’t become Harry Kane. Whereas the money we’ve invested and all the other factors we’ve discussed, if he doesn’t ever warrant a move to an elite club then we’ve probably lost out. If he’s the tier down and replicates Chris wood then we’ve lost out as we could have just signed Chris Wood…
 
PuntsWolf said:
I’m sorry Wolfman but a lot of that is total bollocks.

Fabio and Ronaldo aren’t even remotely comparable. He wasn’t a world beater but he was still holding his own in a top 4 team. He’d also played a lot for Sporting the year before. Fabio looked out of his depth in a bottom half team, wasn’t getting a look in at Porto. Ronaldo also showed promise, pace, skill, technique. Fabio could be the most intelligent striker on the planet, but you still need the physical and technical attributes to back that up to become world class.
Click to expand...
Ronaldo did show promise, but even so, if he stayed at that level would he have been worth initial the outlay?
PuntsWolf said:
Regardless of what this inflation website says, £17m then was not £70m now.
Click to expand...
Why not? Transfer fees have seen massive inflation since 2003. If you disagree fair enough, but at least explain why.

Here is the website: https://www.totallymoney.com/content/transfer-index/

You've got Mbappe going for 150m as a teenager now, Felix going for 100m.


PuntsWolf said:
Youth records are literally irrelevant. BAS was banging them in, Zele Ismail was the first £100m player, Chris Cornes was the best player in the academy ahead of Mark Davies, Kyle Bennett was winning player of the tournament every week in national competitions. Didn’t quite become world beaters did they?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say they are irrelevant, but yes you can't bank on them. I mean I'd imagine Messi was quite good in youth football. That's why I said I wouldn't have gambled on Fabio if it was my decision.

PuntsWolf said:
You say we should pay more for Fabio than Neto because he scored a few as a kid? Bonkers. Neto they had seen was already good, had the tools to succeed, could come in and contribute. Fabio did not have the tools and could not contribute, was not already good.
Click to expand...

How had they seen it? Neto had played less than 10 league games in senior football, a lot as a substitute.
PuntsWolf said:
Anyway

To go on what do I think we should have paid. Well, based on the £35m we’ve paid, the time, effort, risk, wages, detriment to the team. I think we need to get £50-60m (at current market value) to break even. He has to go at Jadon Sancho levels to make a reasonable profit.

So he needs to basically become one of the best strikers in world football to pay off. If he becomes a solid top half striker but not good enough for an elite club then we’re making an effectual loss. Or certainly a pointless venture.

On ability, what he brings to the table, risk element, short term effect on us £10-15m max. Chuck in the broken all the records in the world (guaranteed superstar nonsense) and you could maybe stretch to £20m. At least at those levels you can still turn a profit if he doesn’t become Harry Kane. Whereas the money we’ve invested and all the other factors we’ve discussed, if he doesn’t ever warrant a move to an elite club then we’ve probably lost out. If he’s the tier down and replicates Chris wood then we’ve lost out
Click to expand...

So are you saying that you wouldn't have paid any more than whatever 20 million was back in 2003 for Christiano Ronaldo?
 
WolfMan said:
Ronaldo did show promise, but even so, if he stayed at that level would he have been worth initial the outlay?

Why not? Transfer fees have seen massive inflation since 2003. If you disagree fair enough, but at least explain why.

Here is the website: https://www.totallymoney.com/content/transfer-index/

You've got Mbappe going for 150m as a teenager now, Felix going for 100m.



I wouldn't say they are irrelevant, but yes you can't bank on them. I mean I'd imagine Messi was quite good in youth football. That's why I said I wouldn't have gambled on Fabio if it was my decision.



How had they seen it? Neto had played less than 10 league games in senior football, a lot as a substitute.


So are you saying that you wouldn't have paid any more than whatever 20 million was back in 2003 for Christiano Ronaldo?
Click to expand...
My last one.

Ronado wasn’t going to stay at the same level. Neither is Fabio, not sure what you’re point is.

Inflation - £17m wasn’t that much in 2004. Teams were routinely spending way more than that. £70m is still a massive amount now, teams aren’t routinely spending at that level or more
. There has been the odd exception where Mbappe, Neymar, Felix have gone for stupid money, but that’s still a massive exception, not the rule. Diogo Jota went to an elite club for £45m last summer. That’s still a massive feedback today’s market. Back then reversing inflation that was getting you Wayne bridge, Barry Ferguson etc.

Common sense tells you £17m then isn’t £70m now.

How had they seen Neto? Playing football I guess. I’m no scout but saw him in those EL qualifiers and thought he’s got something. Whereas I saw Fabio against Stoke reserves look like a competition winner.

Would I have paid £17m for Ronaldo in 2003. No idea, never watched him play for Sporting. But statiscally he was contributing for them, came to Man Utd and looked like he had something. He was probably playing at a better level than Neto was when they first joined. That’s all I can go off. Man Utd also have unlimited cash.

But the need to compare Fabio Silva to possibly the greatest player to ever play the game is just bizarre. Just read that back to yourself.

We overpaid because the deal is dodgy as fuck. Stop trying to pretend it’s not. It’s that simple. We can still do well out of it. We may do, we may not.

Im done. Your welcome to respond but I won’t reply for everyone else’s sake
 
And as I posted above. It’s circular now Punts. We paid a boat load. So we now have to hope Fabio develops to a point where we don’t do badly in the deal. Will we? Honestly, fuck knows.

I hope so as I really want him to succeed.
 
PuntsWolf said:
My last one.

Ronado wasn’t going to stay at the same level. Neither is Fabio, not sure what you’re point is.

Inflation - £17m wasn’t that much in 2004. Teams were routinely spending way more than that. £70m is still a massive amount now, teams aren’t routinely spending at that level or more
. There has been the odd exception where Mbappe, Neymar, Felix have gone for stupid money, but that’s still a massive exception, not the rule. Diogo Jota went to an elite club for £45m last summer. That’s still a massive feedback today’s market. Back then reversing inflation that was getting you Wayne bridge, Barry Ferguson etc.

Common sense tells you £17m then isn’t £70m now.

How had they seen Neto? Playing football I guess. I’m no scout but saw him in those EL qualifiers and thought he’s got something. Whereas I saw Fabio against Stoke reserves look like a competition winner.

Would I have paid £17m for Ronaldo in 2003. No idea, never watched him play for Sporting. But statiscally he was contributing for them, came to Man Utd and looked like he had something. He was probably playing at a better level than Neto was when they first joined. That’s all I can go off. Man Utd also have unlimited cash.

But the need to compare Fabio Silva to possibly the greatest player to ever play the game is just bizarre. Just read that back to yourself.

We overpaid because the deal is dodgy as fuck. Stop trying to pretend it’s not. It’s that simple. We can still do well out of it. We may do, we may not.

Im done. Your welcome to respond but I won’t reply for everyone else’s sake
Click to expand...
Ok mate fair enough. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I don't think Fabio Silva will be as good as Ronaldo, and I personally wouldn't have spent 35m on him.

But if I am wrong and he approaches anywhere near that level, I think 35m is a snip. That's literally all I was trying to say with my original the jury is still out for me comment.
 
“If you have no personal pride and you don’t really care how you play on a Saturday, you will stop and have a cheeseburger and chips when you feel like one”

“But if you’ve got pride that you won’t play well if you eat it, you don’t eat it.

“And you won’t stop by the pub and drink three pints of lager if you’re worried about how you’re going to play in four days’ time, you go home.”
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
“If you have no personal pride and you don’t really care how you play on a Saturday, you will stop and have a cheeseburger and chips when you feel like one”

“But if you’ve got pride that you won’t play well if you eat it, you don’t eat it.

“And you won’t stop by the pub and drink three pints of lager if you’re going to drive home, you go and get a taxi.”
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
The size of the transfer fee isn’t as relevant as it once was, it isn’t an indication as to the ability of the player. If you take three recent transfers of ours…Jota, Silva, Doherty it would probably be fair to say Jota is worth more than Silva who is worth more than Doherty. The difference between Jota and Silva is not reflected in their respective transfer fees and there is no way Doherty is worth what Spurs paid. All three transfer fees merely indicate the cost of making the deal happen.

Go back a generation or two….the first million pound players were probably amongst the best. Shearer and Ferdinand the same. But in recent years, transfer fees have stopped being an accurate measure of a player and I doubt players pay that much attention to them either - they are just transaction fees.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
The size of the transfer fee isn’t as relevant as it once was, it isn’t an indication as to the ability of the player. If you take three recent transfers of ours…Jota, Silva, Doherty it would probably be fair to say Jota is worth more than Silva who is worth more than Doherty. The difference between Jota and Silva is not reflected in their respective transfer fees and there is no way Doherty is worth what Spurs paid. All three transfer fees merely indicate the cost of making the deal happen.

Go back a generation or two….the first million pound players were probably amongst the best. Shearer and Ferdinand the same. But in recent years, transfer fees have stopped being an accurate measure of a player and I doubt players pay that much attention to them either - they are just transaction fees.
Click to expand...
I'll bite. Spurs bought a first choice player from a team who finshed a place behind them the year before and was under contract for another couple of years. The fact is he's shit as we all know, but he absolutely was worth what they paid and probably more from the fact that their perception had to be that they were weakening an opponent and he wasn't crap. The fact the club didn't see 1/3 of that is another issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dinowolf
Welcome to Wolves Pedro Lima
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Tony Towner
Tony Towner
Dinowolf
Welcome to Wolves Jorgen Strand Larsen
Replies
13
Views
1K
Tony Towner
Tony Towner
KiwiWolf61
  • Sticky
The Wolves Archive
14 15 16
Replies
307
Views
10K
KiwiWolf61
KiwiWolf61
G
Chelsea Tickets
Replies
8
Views
706
pagey
pagey
W
The view from the SW Stand vs West Ham
Replies
0
Views
499
Wellen Wolf
W
Back
Top