| Hutch 05:55 - Jan 20 with 1951 views | flykickingbybgunn |
The Telegraph now values Hutch at £59m. Seems over priced to me but there you are. |  | | |  |
| Hutch on 07:58 - Jan 20 with 1605 views | itfc48 |
Crazy. Not sure he’s done enough to justify his price tag yet, letalone a substantial increase. |  | | |
| Hutch on 08:02 - Jan 20 with 1567 views | Metal_Hacker |
Personally I hope that number doubles and we've got a tidy sell on clause |  |
| |
| Hutch on 08:35 - Jan 20 with 1393 views | bournemouthblue |
That does seem wild, he has looked okay for Forest under Dyche, he certainly gets a lot of balls into the box for them |  |
| |
| Hutch on 09:11 - Jan 20 with 1217 views | Churchman |
I find ‘valuation’ of players bewildering. Obviously the computer toy brigade do not, as demonstrated by their judgement of the club’s signings in the past two years. ‘Overpaid’’money wasted’ is a common cry. But how do you value a player, especially given the crazy money washing around in the Premier League and the desperation of some owners, not least those fearing the drop?
Surely the basic elements are money available to spend, the desire of player/agent to move, what else is available and at what price, fit for the buying club, terms for the player, desire for the player to live and work in what might be a strange place, buying club’s scouting network, selling club’s willingness to sell and their price etc etc etc. in other words, it seems far more difficult than ‘I want him, I set the price’, he arrives for the photoshoot, dimbo interview and badge kissing.
So is Hutchinson worth £59m? Seems ridiculous to me but I’m not so sure it is if you drill it down to worth = what somebody is prepared to pay. I’d add that if you say look at Chelsea’s summer spend of £750m it looks crazy for what they have. Telephone numbers. But they did recoup most of that in sales. Maybe individual transfers should not be judged in isolation.
All I know is the numbers are mind blowing but then I thought £200k for Paul Mariner and latterly £1.5m for Nathan Broadhead was over the top. [Post edited 20 Jan 9:12]
|  | | |
| Hutch on 09:50 - Jan 20 with 1070 views | breedalot |
| Hutch on 09:11 - Jan 20 by Churchman |
I find ‘valuation’ of players bewildering. Obviously the computer toy brigade do not, as demonstrated by their judgement of the club’s signings in the past two years. ‘Overpaid’’money wasted’ is a common cry. But how do you value a player, especially given the crazy money washing around in the Premier League and the desperation of some owners, not least those fearing the drop?
Surely the basic elements are money available to spend, the desire of player/agent to move, what else is available and at what price, fit for the buying club, terms for the player, desire for the player to live and work in what might be a strange place, buying club’s scouting network, selling club’s willingness to sell and their price etc etc etc. in other words, it seems far more difficult than ‘I want him, I set the price’, he arrives for the photoshoot, dimbo interview and badge kissing.
So is Hutchinson worth £59m? Seems ridiculous to me but I’m not so sure it is if you drill it down to worth = what somebody is prepared to pay. I’d add that if you say look at Chelsea’s summer spend of £750m it looks crazy for what they have. Telephone numbers. But they did recoup most of that in sales. Maybe individual transfers should not be judged in isolation.
All I know is the numbers are mind blowing but then I thought £200k for Paul Mariner and latterly £1.5m for Nathan Broadhead was over the top. [Post edited 20 Jan 9:12]
|
Who are the computer toy brigade? | | | |
| Hutch on 09:55 - Jan 20 with 1031 views | rickw |
I think you've misread it - it's about accumulative fees - we paid 22m and sold him for 37m = 59m |  |
| |
| Hutch on 10:08 - Jan 20 with 992 views | Wright1 |
He's young, English and performing in the PL. It really doesn't take much to fetch a big fee under those circumstances. Had we not been relegated i'm certain we wouldn't have let him leave for what we got. | | | |
| Hutch on 10:17 - Jan 20 with 944 views | baxterbasics |
| Hutch on 10:08 - Jan 20 by Wright1 |
He's young, English and performing in the PL. It really doesn't take much to fetch a big fee under those circumstances. Had we not been relegated i'm certain we wouldn't have let him leave for what we got. |
Standard Premier League inflation innit?
£37M in 2025 is equivalent £59M in 2026. We'll have the first billion pound transfer fee sometime around 2030. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hutch on 11:09 - Jan 20 with 805 views | mellowblue |
| Hutch on 09:11 - Jan 20 by Churchman |
I find ‘valuation’ of players bewildering. Obviously the computer toy brigade do not, as demonstrated by their judgement of the club’s signings in the past two years. ‘Overpaid’’money wasted’ is a common cry. But how do you value a player, especially given the crazy money washing around in the Premier League and the desperation of some owners, not least those fearing the drop?
Surely the basic elements are money available to spend, the desire of player/agent to move, what else is available and at what price, fit for the buying club, terms for the player, desire for the player to live and work in what might be a strange place, buying club’s scouting network, selling club’s willingness to sell and their price etc etc etc. in other words, it seems far more difficult than ‘I want him, I set the price’, he arrives for the photoshoot, dimbo interview and badge kissing.
So is Hutchinson worth £59m? Seems ridiculous to me but I’m not so sure it is if you drill it down to worth = what somebody is prepared to pay. I’d add that if you say look at Chelsea’s summer spend of £750m it looks crazy for what they have. Telephone numbers. But they did recoup most of that in sales. Maybe individual transfers should not be judged in isolation.
All I know is the numbers are mind blowing but then I thought £200k for Paul Mariner and latterly £1.5m for Nathan Broadhead was over the top. [Post edited 20 Jan 9:12]
|
200k plus 2 players (Austin and Peddelty? )to be more precise; it was a big sum then for sure. The rising player valuations and equivalent wages across the board shows no sign of slowing or topping out, it is getting more understandable if crowds can no longer empathise with players as once they did and can get almost hostile if said players do not perform to the valuation. Not the players fault, they are just milking the cash cow. We would all do the same in our own professions given a chance. | | | |
| Hutch on 11:19 - Jan 20 with 767 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
His value is only that if someone will pay it. Is anyone going to offer £60m for him, very unlikely given his output so far. | | | |
| Hutch on 11:49 - Jan 20 with 670 views | itfc48 |
| Hutch on 09:55 - Jan 20 by rickw |
I think you've misread it - it's about accumulative fees - we paid 22m and sold him for 37m = 59m |
In that case, they've neglected the few million Chelsea paid Arsenal for him. | | | |
| Hutch on 14:23 - Jan 20 with 372 views | monty_radio |
| Hutch on 09:55 - Jan 20 by rickw |
I think you've misread it - it's about accumulative fees - we paid 22m and sold him for 37m = 59m |
Yes - that's where they get the headline-grabbing 1 Billion poundsworth of talent emanating from the Chelsea Academy. Not quite such a startling figure in that there have been many examples of strikers, Tony Hateley springs to mind if anyone goes back that far, who have changed hands several times without ever unarguably proving they were worth quite so much. | |
| |
| Hutch on 17:18 - Jan 20 with 167 views | eireblue |
I didn’t know The Telegraph had a football team. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
