Is Essien Worth 32 Million Pounds

No way.

 

Alan Shearer cost 15million...that is all you need to know...any player that cost more than that is not worth the money

 

And I remember Alan Sugar saying that financially it made no sense at all, the expenditure couldn't be justified, and that it was m.a.d.

I suppose with the market probably increasing at a greater rate than inflation, that £15 mill is probably more like £25 mill now...

 

150 goals?
His infulence
His fan pulling power

It think 15 million was cheap

It was Alan "i don't like queers,i don't like bull shíters, i don't like anyone" Suger so he can just go to hell

 

heck no.. to much
save the $$$ & buy Emerson ( Juv)

 

Lampard cost £11M - you decide!

 

Can you tell me this weeks lottery numbers please?

 

no way. and just for the record SWP isnt worth 21M either

 

******** no.

 

Oh, I wasn't disputing his value or that it was the correct choice, I just remember Sugar saying that, and thinking, oh well Spurs wont be signing any big names, what a shame

 

No

 

naaah

i'd rather have Park!
oh yeah, we got him

 

Cocaine's a hell of a drug!

But the answer is obviously no.

 

second reference to Charlie, Nicephoras, careful of the man with big ears

but back to the question, depends if your're Chelsea for everyone else Hell NO!

 

Why don't you go and purify yourself in the waters of lake Minnetonka?

 

Minnetonka please explain.

 

Ahh, you've never seen that particular episode of Charlie Murphy's stories, have you?

 

---
you do understand comparing apples with apples?

 

Cheers, and no.

 

Of course he's not. Very few players are "worth" what is paid for them in the market as it has been for the past 7 years or so in relative or in real terms. If you're Chelsea, that's even more the case, because even the most nominal notions of "market decrees values" goes out of the window. They don't pay what the market deems them to be worth, they pay what the selling club thinks they can get away with asking for. Look at Drogba last season, Juve put in a £12m bid for him and Marseilles sat down at the table with them. That was the market talking. But Chelsea don't do markets.

And the point about return on investment is a good one. You can't possibly make a financial return on a player, not even one that is priced in accordance with some market paradigm (however inaccurate that is in football). Take a bog-standard player like, say, Momo Sissoko that we just signed. We paid £5m for his transfer and we've put him on around £25k a week for a five-year deal. So right there that's £11.25m for one single player over five years. There's no way a single player can repay that amount through their actions on the football pitch - in the case of all but the biggest football stars, there's no way they can do it off the pitch either. Even if Sissoko plays every game he can in those five years and plays a significant role in us winning at least one major trophy in each of those years then he can't singularly generate £11.25m in income - and that's before the fact that if he did perform that well he'd end up costing us considerably more than that by the time his contract came to an end.

Of course, you have to factor in the idea that he will improve, do well and then perhaps be an asset we would be willing to sell for more than £5m - perhaps even £11.25m. But no club or manager that invests in the transfer is actually doing justice to the word - the vast majority of "assets" they buy are a net loss-maker.

 

But Matt, think of all the shirts he'll sell!

 

If you buy a player for 30 million pounds and he helps you win the Champions League...you'll still suffer a financial loss from his fee and wages, even considering the amount of off-the-field revenue he brings in, correct? (with the exception of beckham) Therefore, if football has become a business then why do the "business" clubs still pay extravagant fees?