Lucas Moura

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

You obviously haven't. And frankly spoken I don't know what else to respond since I already explained it to you. Inflation didn't begin with Roman or Mansour. It's the natural deflation of money. Really, WTF?! Is this a WUM attempt?

I know exactly what it is and I have explained my meaning. Inflation goes up, the cost of living goes up. That is how it affects everyone. You bringing inflation into the argument is pointless (unless you are going say 20 years back) as it ignores other obvious major factors.

But according to you, the stupid prices we see today are all down to Inflation and Roman Abramovich and Mansour spending sprees have absolutely nothing to do with it. If they never arrived at City and Chelsea I'm sure James Milner and Lescott would still cost £25 million, and I'm sure Andy Carroll would still cost £35 million and I'm sure £100 million pound bids would still have been submitted for Ricardo Kaka. All because of inflation........yeah right

There is a reason why it took 8 years before anyone broke the world transfer record of £46 million for Zidane, and it wasn't inflation.

And no, I'm not on the wind up.

Right, that's how you meant it.

Anyway, if you truly think these new ridiculous transfer fees have nothing do to with inflation then, as Ursegor says, you don't understand the concept. However, you are also right in that sugar daddies also have contributed to these transfer fees.

It's a result of both.

inflation I will admit plays a very small part, but not as much as this guy is making it out. He's basically treating football and players like other products and services in the economy and that is just plain wrong when trying to apply textbook inflation to this sport and the transfers fees seen.

If inflation plays such a big part in football transfer fees why has the progression to breaking the £46 million pound transfer record for Zinedine Zidane taken 8 years where we get to the sugar daddy era in which transfer fees have gone mad just because of them?

 

[Ursegor]

But according to you, the stupid prices we see today are all down to Inflation and Roman Abramovich and Mansour spending sprees have absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's not what I said and you're mixing up 2 completely different things. I said that 25 million pounds being payed for Rooney in 2004 equal about slightly above 30 million pounds in 2012. That's only down to natural inflation of money. Full stop. Chelsea and City have further inflated the market but that's irrelevant to the topic of how much Rooney cost. The average inflation rate in Great Britain from 2004 to 2012 was 3 % (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/inflation/result.php). This means if you had £ 10000 in 2004, you needed £ 10300 in 2005 to be exactly as rich as the year before. This is completely irrevelant of football, transfers, Mansour and whatnot. It's the natural devaluation of money. Click on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)#Players Rio Ferdinand was bought for £ 29.1 million in 2002. Inflation-adjusted that's £ 35 million in 2012. Because £ 29 million in 2002 doesn't equal £ 29 million in 2012. I can't make myself any clearer for you.

 

[SwiftGuyver]

Thiago Silva, Sakho, Pastore, Lucas Moura, Lavezzi, Ibrahimović, Verratti, Gameiro, Ménez etc etc etc...

PSG could be a real force this season...

 

[Deco 20]

But the Pound has gone down since 2002

 

[Henry_IB]

But the Pound has gone down since 2002

That's exactly what inflation is.

Imagine that everyone started making 10,000 euro each month instead of say 1,000. Prices on all kind of products would sky rocket because people all of a sudden got 10x more money than before. Say you have a car made in only 20 examples. If you then all of a sudden produced another 10,000 of these cars, the price (value) on each car would go down as they aren't that exclusive anymore. Now think of the cars as money (obviously this is quite a big generalization)

People these days got more money / higher income on average than they did 5 years ago, henceforth prices on product goes up. So just because a coke today costs 1 dollar comapred to 2 cents or something back in the 50s, it doesn't mean that coke today is more expensive (relatively) than it was in the 50s.

Hope this made it clear.

 

[Henry_IB]

inflation I will admit plays a very small part, but not as much as this guy is making it out. He's basically treating football and players like other products and services in the economy and that is just plain wrong when trying to apply textbook inflation to this sport and the transfers fees seen.

If inflation plays such a big part in football transfer fees why has the progression to breaking the £46 million pound transfer record for Zinedine Zidane taken 8 years where we get to the sugar daddy era in which transfer fees have gone mad just because of them?

I never claimed to what extent inflation played in the transfer fees. Inflation adds a few millions in today's transfer fees. Sugar daddies certaintly also push up the prices (more than inflation, I'll give you that). However a big aspect, perhaps the greatest of all is the great increase in income for clubs over the last years. Just one example being that the total tv revenue for PL has increased by £200 million between 2008 and 2011/12. Year after year since 2004 almost there have been new finanical records for football clubs.

 

[Raed]

Thought you said you welcome these new spenders?

About time they got to me, eh?

But I definitely don't 'welcome' them. Plus there is an underlying reason as to why I hate PSG. Otherwise, I relish the competition and I relish destroying them.

 

[Tembbi]

That's not what I said and you're mixing up 2 completely different things. I said that 25 million pounds being payed for Rooney in 2004 equal about slightly above 30 million pounds in 2012. That's only down to natural inflation of money. Full stop. Chelsea and City have further inflated the market but that's irrelevant to the topic of how much Rooney cost. The average inflation rate in Great Britain from 2004 to 2012 was 3 % (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/inflation/result.php). This means if you had £ 10000 in 2004, you needed £ 10300 in 2005 to be exactly as rich as the year before. This is completely irrevelant of football, transfers, Mansour and whatnot. It's the natural devaluation of money. Click on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)#Players Rio Ferdinand was bought for £ 29.1 million in 2002. Inflation-adjusted that's £ 35 million in 2012. Because £ 29 million in 2002 doesn't equal £ 29 million in 2012. I can't make myself any clearer for you.

Actually, since we're trading in an international market, comparing the prices in pounds or any one currency won't really tell the truth.
In 2001, Zidane cost £53 million. Back then 1 pound ~ 1,64 euros. In 2011, Torres cost £50 million, while 1 pound ~ 1,1 euros. Next you will have to play with inflation.

What I'm trying to say here is that comparing past prices in an international market is ridiculous. You would have to create a new currency which wouldn't change value so you could
compare all currencies to that. Other currencies grow stronger while others sink, you know. Then to HBA, inflation surely does play a big role in the prices. Your Drunk-Andy (£35 million)
is only £22 million in 2001 pounds (compared to euros). Besides, Pool had roughly 3 days to just buy anyone they could before the transfer window closed so Newcastle could basically
ask for anything they wanted.

However, I agree that Mansour, Abramovich etc. have made it possible to buy whoever they want because they aren't even trying to run a profitable company. The reason players cost,
so much is that most teams can ask for anything if they know one of City, PSG, Chelsea is interested in the player. They want someone, they buy him. But claiming inflation does not
play a big role in the prices is ridiculous. The prices have gone up soooo much in 10 years.

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

Actually, since we're trading in an international market, comparing the prices in pounds or any one currency won't really tell the truth.
In 2001, Zidane cost £53 million. Back then 1 pound ~ 1,64 euros. In 2011, Torres cost £50 million, while 1 pound ~ 1,1 euros. Next you will have to play with inflation.

What I'm trying to say here is that comparing past prices in an international market is ridiculous. You would have to create a new currency which wouldn't change value so you could
compare all currencies to that. Other currencies grow stronger while others sink, you know. Then to HBA, inflation surely does play a big role in the prices. Your Drunk-Andy (£35 million)
is only £22 million in 2001 pounds (compared to euros). Besides, Pool had roughly 3 days to just buy anyone they could before the transfer window closed so Newcastle could basically
ask for anything they wanted.

However, I agree that Mansour, Abramovich etc. have made it possible to buy whoever they want because they aren't even trying to run a profitable company. The reason players cost,
so much is that most teams can ask for anything if they know one of City, PSG, Chelsea is interested in the player. They want someone, they buy him. But claiming inflation does not
play a big role in the prices is ridiculous. The prices have gone up soooo much in 10 years.

I guess Andy Carroll costing £35 million had nothing to do with a Sugar Daddy at Chelsea putting £50 million pounds into the pockets of Liverpool for Fernando Torres? It's all down to the big role that is inflation eh?

And I'm sure £100 million bids by Man City for Kaka was all down to inflation. I'm sure that figure had no effect on how much Man Utd were asking Real Madrid for Ronaldo either because it's all down to the big role of economic inflation.

And Zidane cost £46 million.

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

That's not what I said and you're mixing up 2 completely different things. I said that 25 million pounds being payed for Rooney in 2004 equal about slightly above 30 million pounds in 2012. That's only down to natural inflation of money. Full stop. Chelsea and City have further inflated the market but that's irrelevant to the topic of how much Rooney cost. The average inflation rate in Great Britain from 2004 to 2012 was 3 % (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/inflation/result.php). This means if you had £ 10000 in 2004, you needed £ 10300 in 2005 to be exactly as rich as the year before. This is completely irrevelant of football, transfers, Mansour and whatnot. It's the natural devaluation of money. Click on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)#Players Rio Ferdinand was bought for £ 29.1 million in 2002. Inflation-adjusted that's £ 35 million in 2012. Because £ 29 million in 2002 doesn't equal £ 29 million in 2012. I can't make myself any clearer for you.

Man City and Chelsea increasing transfer prices is relevant to Rooney because you are comparing his fee to Moura's.

It is absolutely incorrect to inflate Rooney's transfer fee because economic inflation barley has anything to do with the prices we see today like Moura for £45 million. It is largely down to sugar daddies with stupid money being quoted stupid prices because selling clubs know they have stupid money. And because of this other selling clubs say look at what so and so sold for when he went to Man City/Chelsea, we think our player is worth that kind of money too, when they are so blatantly NOT and it just gets out of hand.

Take away Abramovich and Mansour and Qatari Investment and you I promise you that you we would not have seen Carroll £35, Milner & Lescott £25 million, Torres £50 million, Cristian Ronaldo £80 million and freaking Stuart Downing £20 million. It's a freaking joke and has hardly anything at all to do with natural economic inflation.

 

[Tembbi]

You don't seem to understand that Andy 35 million = 26 million in 2001 (Zidane transfer year) money. Then because pound's relation to euro has dropped from 1,64 to 1,1 between those years.
26 million pounds now could be viewed as 17 million pounds back then. Technically, if this transfer would have happened in 2001, Andy would have cost 17 million pounds because that is what
35 million pounds now was worth back then (in relation to Euros). You are correct that these Sugar Daddies play a big role, no one has claimed otherwise. But the fact is inflation has caused
at least half of the price increase, while you claim it's "hardly anything".

 

[Biscuits]

Don't try to reason with HBA, he isn't really all there mentally. He actually believes Hatem Ben Arfa is superstar who chose Newcastle over Barca, Real and other big clubs

 

[Deco 20]

That's exactly what inflation is.

Imagine that everyone started making 10,000 euro each month instead of say 1,000. Prices on all kind of products would sky rocket because people all of a sudden got 10x more money than before. Say you have a car made in only 20 examples. If you then all of a sudden produced another 10,000 of these cars, the price (value) on each car would go down as they aren't that exclusive anymore. Now think of the cars as money (obviously this is quite a big generalization)

People these days got more money / higher income on average than they did 5 years ago, henceforth prices on product goes up. So just because a coke today costs 1 dollar comapred to 2 cents or something back in the 50s, it doesn't mean that coke today is more expensive (relatively) than it was in the 50s.

Hope this made it clear.

It has gone down in comparison to the Swedish krona, that is what I meant
I don't know if the same applies to the dollar or the euro

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

Don't try to reason with HBA, he isn't really all there mentally. He actually believes Hatem Ben Arfa is superstar who chose Newcastle over Barca, Real and other big clubs

he chose Newcastle because none of the other clubs wanted to take a chance on a player with a reputation for trouble making.

Never said he's a superstar. I'd love you to quote me on that.

 

[Flavia]

Brasileiro ended, he must be presented by PSG soon. I wonder if he'd have a place on their starting 11.