26 Aug 2026 08:22:32
I’m not sure if this has been covered previously, but how are we so bad at commanding fees for our players compared to other teams?
It looks like Chelsea are due to make a £20m profit on Liam Delap after one season and 2 PL goals. City have absolutely smashed it with getting massive fees for the players they’ve sold, albeit the Savinho/Marmoush deal seems extremely fishy, with Frankfurt due to miss out on their sell-on fee because Spurs have massively overpaid for Savinho.
We seem to offload players for peanuts.
26 Aug 2026 10:45:48
Look at the clubs involved in these transfers. We could definitely do better when it comes to getting fees for our players, but I'd argue the figures we're selling for are probably closer to actual market value than some of the fees these clubs are paying and receiving.
Personally, I think the credibility of some of these transfers has to be questioned.
When you look at the clubs involved and the money changing hands, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. But the can has been kicked so far down the road now that these sorts of deals have almost become the norm, and we're just expected to accept them.
26 Aug 2026 10:50:51
On one hand, we tend to sell players on a clear downward trend, normally after giving them a contract that few other clubs can afford, and even fewer would be prepared to pay it.
That makes selling players particularly difficult. Add to that a reputation of selling low, and clubs just aren't prepared to pay more for our players.
Also, try reversing the roles. If the buying club were selling us that player, would you be happy to buy them for the fee that we are selling for?
For example, would you be happy if we bought Rasmus Hojlund this summer for EUR44m from Napoli? Or would you think we've paid too much?
You could argue that if you wouldn't be happy with that deal, then we probably got a fair amount for him.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find out that some of these deals are a little shady and not entirely legit, but done as a work around for FFP rules.
26 Aug 2026 11:19:05
Yeah, I do get that, Shappy. Hojlund is a good example. We massively overpaid for him when he had had one good season at Atalanta. Antony also.
The City outgoings this summer have been something else, though.
If Spurs are getting themselves involved with City's dodgy dealings, then good luck to them. Surely at some point the FA will need to look into these deals.
26 Aug 2026 12:03:55
The problem is that clubs are considered private businesses, and it is very difficult to tightly regulate businesses, particularly when it comes to restricting or limiting the spending that they can do.
There are already a plethora of rules and regulations, and as soon as they introduce a new one, clubs start looking for loopholes and ways to circumnavigate it.
Personally, I think the simplest solution is to fix players' transfer fees. That way, you not only remove the opportunity for dodgy deals, but you also free up movement of players, and discourage shady agents from underhanded tactics designed to line their own pockets more than serve their clients.
If you said every single player's transfer fee is fixed at the total amount of money they are due to be paid over the remaining years of their contract, then you have a clear and simple way to agree on the player's value and price.
For example, if a player signs a 5 year deal worth 10m a year, then he is worth 50m to his club at the time of signing the deal.
One year later, he has 4 years remaining at 10m, meaning his value is now 40m. If any club is prepared to pay that, then why shouldn't the player be free to move if they wish.
Given that the general consensus is that footballers are overpaid, it becomes hard for clubs to argue that the player is worth more than they are paying them. And, if they feel he is worth more, all they need to do is offer him a new deal on higher wages or a longer contract to protect themselves, while also protecting the player.
While doing this reduces the amount of work an agent and club needs to do in terms of negotiating, there can be fixed fees of 5 or 10% of the transfer fee as an agent's fee.
In doing these two things, you suddenly make all football transfers much more simple, streamlined, and open, reducing the opportunity for corruption, and, as such, you should also reduce the risk of clubs getting into financial trouble.
26 Aug 2026 12:07:23
Starts with the fact that we have historically criminally overpaid for players, both in transfer fees and in wages. Big wages and big fees are hard to shift.
26 Aug 2026 12:36:02
Yeah, it's a joke.
Apparently we are going to be letting James Scanlon and Ogunneye go for free with a buy back and sell on clause, likely to go to Arsenal.
26 Aug 2026 15:42:21
Honestly, some of the transfers this summer have been ridiculous.
I have no idea how Delap's value increased, or why Spurs paid £85m for City's fourth-choice RW.
26 Aug 2026 16:15:07
We have been paying excessive transfer fees to get players who are being fed into a failed system where they cannot, or do not, shine; we've been paying them higher wages than anyone else will, and then we protect bang average and/or permanently injured players with lucrative contract extensions because we're scared to let them go for nothing at the end of their contracts.
All of these factors make it impossible to sell profitably. Part of the problem has been the fear of losing players who were actually good. De Gea and Rashford are great examples. De Gea was excellent, but, at the time, was he worth £100k a week more than any other goalie in the EPL? Was Rashford worth £325k a week on the back of that one great season?
The great managers through time were always great at getting rid of players at their peak and replacing them with the next star, continually refreshing the squad, dampening personal egos in favor of teamwork, and, as a result, managing both results and the financial side really well.
Woodward was crap at it. An absolute arrogant know-nothing. Fortunately Ineos does seem to know what they're doing, however, they are still hampered by the sins of the past. We still have players who, based on their performances with us, are priced out of the market. And we have a large debt burden with a £40m a year interest burden, which Ineos is not responsible for, but which is the equivalent of a £100m player on £400k a week. The club has to start making profits.
26 Aug 2026 21:41:15
We've not sold anyone for a profit since James, right?
Stockpiling average players for years.
We need a lb and a striker, at least. Why not keep Hojlund as a backup, to let him develop, rather than lose millions on him? Idiotic.