Tannochsidebear 2,316 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 If these are the values the much-lauded-on-here transfermarkt site place on our players, then I suggest any and all future mentions of this site in defence of an argument is hereby null and void. To answer the OP, the worth of our squad is nowhere near enough as a result of the damage done to us from (at least) 2011 onwards. Given MW's policy of buying (mostly) players with a development and sell-on value, I would say he has done his job quite well in his first season. Wes, Tav, Waghorn, McKay, Holt, Halliday are all worth in excess of £1M at the moment, and hopefully by this time next year are worth a great deal more. He has shown that, generally speaking, he seems to be able to buy a low 6 figure sum player and turn them into a low 7 figure player. The next big question is will he be able to buy low 7 figure players and develop them into being worth significantly more? We all hope so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,153 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 the crazy transfer market will decide the prices , Its all gone bonkers I remember when jimmy greaves left milan for spurs 99,0000 trying to imagine what that sum of money would look like 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 The mckay evaluation is a joke. That particular valuation is exactly why I will never give any credibility to the values coming from that particular website, even though it is dB's go to site for player values It fails to take into account anything such as form, demand for a player etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 It may be an objective starting point but that in itself is completely irrelevant when values are so far removed from reality. Being objectively wrong is still being wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 In what respect? I'd be looking for good money for McKay as I agree with the OP that he is a genuine talent and I don't think we have even come close to seeing his best. jhunter was talking about the valuation placed on him by transfrmkt, not andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) It may be an objective starting point but that in itself is completely irrelevant when values are so far removed from reality. Being objectively wrong is still being wrong. While it might not be accurate due to many factors, I don't see how it's "wrong". It's exactly how much his club value him as an employee at the time. It's definitely a starting point in valuations and why O'Halloran wasn't worth say 1m to us, no matter how much Hibs wanted more money. Had they been paying him 20k a week, they could easily have justified a lot more money - but then he'd have to justify the wage. It also explains why a player with three years left on his contract will usually be worth a good bit more than when he only has one. No matter how wrong you think it is, I think in reality it is a very tangilble factor that can't be ignored, and without it people are just plucking numbers out the air, rather than making an well considered assessment. Edited February 12, 2016 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 The mckay evaluation is a joke. In what respect? I'd be looking for good money for McKay as I agree with the OP that he is a genuine talent and I don't think we have even come close to seeing his best. Sorry J - just read the OP properly and can see where it originally came from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 While it might not be accurate due to many factors, I don't see how it's "wrong". It's exactly how much his club value him as an employee at the time.It's definitely a starting point in valuations and why O'Halloran wasn't worth say 1m to us, no matter how much Hibs wanted more money. Had they been paying him 20k a week, they could easily have justified a lot more money - but then he'd have to justify the wage. It also explains why a player with three years left on his contract will usually be worth a good bit more than when he only has one. No matter how wrong you think it is, I think in reality it is a very tangilble factor that can't be ignored, and without it people are just plucking numbers out the air, rather than making an well considered assessment. No it isn't. It is naïve to think that club's value their players based on salary multiplied by length of contract left multiplied by any other factor that is included. I hold to my belief that just because you use an "objective" starting point doesn't mean that it makes it accurate. Objectivity takes the guessing out of things, but if the inputs are inappropriate or flawed then the outputs will be worthless too. You only need to look at the valuations for McKay to see that the "objective starting point" is flawed. No way is McKay worth only 188k. Not sure how Hibs wanted more money for O'Halloran when he was St Johnstone's player Even using his salary as a justification is weak, IMHO. A player's salary doesn't necessarily have a strong correlation to his transfer value. Correlation, yes. But a significant determinant in his valuation ? Not in my opinion. It may be tangible, but tangible doesn't make it accurate. The same way as objective doesn't make it right. Using these numbers aren't making a well considered assessment either - they ignore the qualitative factors in player transfer values, which makes them almost as worthless as the numbers being plucked out of the air. Buzzwords mean little when they still don't provide a great deal of accuracy. Of all those Rangers players andy quoted I would contend that almost ALL of them are being incorrectly valued by transfrmrkt - so you can use their numbers all you like, but any transfers out of the Club, I can almost guarantee you, will not be even close to the numbers they are using. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Author Share Posted February 12, 2016 So, chuck transfermarkt out the window - take Kiernan for an example, how much do you think we'd be looking if a club wanted him? Or Wes? Or Tav? I wasn't really meaning to hold up transfermarkt as accurate, just somewhere to start from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,316 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Kiernan I would think around £1M, Wes £1.5M, Tav about the same. I know Tav has a buy-out clause in his contract and I suspect the other two do also, so if they continue to improve as they have done, it may be we lose them for less than the current "bonkers" market would suggest we should be getting. Some of the English prices are astoundingly high for the quality of the player, and once we have got back to the top flight and if these guys can maintain their impressive performances, then we will need to either get their contracts and buy-out clauses sorted to a more realistic standard, or risk losing these guys for well below their worth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.