Modric

[Deleted]

I'd say 35 million is about right.

Don't get people saying 25? He plays very similar to Alonso (Modric is not an attacking player, he plays deep and dictates play) and Alonso cost 35, why should Spurs get shortchanged when Liverpool didn't? They also got over 30 for Mascherano, Modric is vastly better than him, why should Spurs get a few million less? Or 10 million less than Newcastle got for Carroll? Or a whole 25 million less than Liverpool got for Torres? Or only about the same, maybe a couple of million more, than City got for Wright fucking Philips?!

We've all had a decade to get used to player's huge transfer fees, don't see why the fuss every time someone moves for a fee like this.

[Raf's Hairdryer Treatment]

Hearing arguments that Moura, who few know anything about, is worth the gamble at £30M. But Modric, who's proven himself to be one of the best midfielders in the EPL, is only worth £25M.

Madness.

The only reason I can see that United have pulled away from this one, after Fergie has iterated that he's an admirer, is because of the same reason we backed off Ozil and Sahin. Real Madrid's involvement. Madrid's willingness to pay a player ludicrous amounts of money is matched only by the oil barons. So I'd guess that this has more to do with wages than transfer fees.

The valuation at £36M is high, but as daz points out, it's just the way the market is, and in relation to others, is only mildly inflated (IMHO.)

Think he would have been brilliant for United had he come here.

[Deleted]

Simple question for anyone thinking Spurs have "done" Madrid here, and Modric isn't worth more than, say, 25 million.

Do you think Modric is only worth 5 million more than Nasri?

Bare in mind Modric, as previously noted, is not an attacking midfielder, he plays similar to Carrick, Pirlo, Alonso; he sits deep and spreads play around, and Nasri is very much an attacking player, yet Nasri has scored just 10 goals more in English football than Modric (admittedly in 10 games less), hardly impressive. In internationals Modric has 8 in 57, or 1 in 7.13, compared to Nasri's 4 in 35, or 1 in 8.75.

Nasri has had pretty much 5 or 6 good months in English football, and been very inconsistent. Modric has been consistently very good for Spurs, in my own simple opinion I'd say he's been far better than Nasri.

Nasri also had just 6 months before he could speak openly with any club about moving for nothing, Modric is tied to a 4 year deal.

Now, put yourself in Levy's shoes. Why the hell baring all that in mind would you happily accept just 5 million more than Arsenal got from City?

I'm not arguing that Modric is worth 35 million full stop, that's a seperate discussion about the state of the transfer market and the size of fees. I'm arguing that when players (like Nasri) are moving for the fees they are, Spurs are 100% correct to say that in todays climate, and todays market, in comparision to other players, Modric is worth every penny of 35 million.

[redcase]

Daz, where are you getting your transfer fees for Xabi Alonso and Mascherano from ? Xabi Alonso went for 30 million pounds. Donkey Mascherano went for 18 million pounds. And Modric is not as good as Alonso. So your argument that Spurs are getting shortchanged for Modric is invalid. Spurs are getting way way way above his value with 36 million. For a player who is 28. With regards to Moura, you are buying talent and you are buying a prospect like few others on the planet at 19 years of age. With Moura you are buying a future star whose stock will most definitely rise. If Moura does succeed and has a brilliant spell at whichever club he plays for, the potential transfer fees for him will only increase so you will make a profit from him no matter. Rax, , I think Fergie backed away from this one for the same reason most of us think, because Levy is a tool and would always push for a price that would be ridiculously more than the player's actual worth.

With regards to Nasri, I have never been a fan of his, always thought he was overrated and those stats you've mentioned prove me right. Lot of my gooner mates also said the same thing - he had one good season in the prem and he thought himself zidane's second coming. Andy Carroll's transfer to Liverpool should never be used as an example or benchmark in current transfer trend because no club in their right mind would have paid that much for him. The scum lost all business sense and common sense on that one.

Levy's just being Levy on this one.

[ginger18legend]

Jul 30, 2012 5:20:33 GMT dazjoe said:

Bare in mind Modric, as previously noted, is not an attacking midfielder, he plays similar to Carrick, Pirlo, Alonso; he sits deep and spreads play around

Thank you! I've been trying to point this out since the thread started. Even posted stats to prove it. Dunno which games people have seen him play as an attacking midfielder. Spurs have never used him like that. He doesn't play exactly like Carrick and Alonso in that he doesn't play a typical quarterback long-pass-to-the-wings role. He is more of a give and go type player who keeps possession. Scholesy does both btw.

As far as the transfer fee is concerned, the situation with Nasri was different. He was into the last year of his contract. Also, he is much younger. I think age is the biggest gripe for most people. I would be loathe to spend more than 30 million on Modric. That said, I'd readily spend the Moura money on him.

[ginger18legend]

Jul 30, 2012 6:16:07 GMT redcase said:

And Modric is not as good as Alonso.

I'd say that is debatable. I also prefer Alonso btw, but speaking objectively its hard to say one is better than the other. I may be wrong here but Modric has been nominated for more domestic awards during his time in England than Alonso had. Sir Alex even said he would have picked him to win it two seasons ago. Alonso, while being very good for Liverpool, didn't come close to being the best player in the league.

[redcase]

You have valid points ginger, but in his last season for Liverpool , Alonso was fantastic. He was behind everything good they did. It is my opinion that Alonso is better than Modric. But if it is hard to say one is better than the other , it is hard to justify Modric being valuated 6 million more than Alonso, which brings me to my point that anything above 30 for Modric is an overvaluation. At 25-28 max 30, Modric would be a superb acquisition. At 36 its too much.

[ginger18legend]

Jul 30, 2012 7:50:19 GMT redcase said:

You have valid points ginger, but in his last season for Liverpool , Alonso was fantastic. He was behind everything good they did. It is my opinion that Alonso is better than Modric. But if it is hard to say one is better than the other , it is hard to justify Modric being valuated 6 million more than Alonso, which brings me to my point that anything above 30 for Modric is an overvaluation. At 25-28 max 30, Modric would be a superb acquisition. At 36 its too much.

Agreed. And he has been even better since he joined Madrid. In my opinion he is currently the best player in the world in his role. Similar to Carrick but superior. Although I feel, Modric would fit in alongside Carrick far better than Alonso, as the latter two are very similar. Anyway, that is a separate issue altogether.

As regards the money issue, there are so many variables. Its like comparing apples with oranges really. You have to take into account who the buying and selling clubs, are the players contracts and their ages. Most importantly you have to account for inflation. The market, when Alonso was sold is nothing like it is now.
When you have Andy Carroll going for 35 million and Rafael Van Der Vaart for 7 million, you can see its not exactly 1+1=2.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2012 6:16:07 GMT redcase said:

Daz, where are you getting your transfer fees for Xabi Alonso and Mascherano from ? Xabi Alonso went for 30 million pounds. Donkey Mascherano went for 18 million pounds. And Modric is not as good as Alonso. So your argument that Spurs are getting shortchanged for Modric is invalid. Spurs are getting way way way above his value with 36 million. For a player who is 28. With regards to Moura, you are buying talent and you are buying a prospect like few others on the planet at 19 years of age. With Moura you are buying a future star whose stock will most definitely rise. If Moura does succeed and has a brilliant spell at whichever club he plays for, the potential transfer fees for him will only increase so you will make a profit from him no matter. Rax, , I think Fergie backed away from this one for the same reason most of us think, because Levy is a tool and would always push for a price that would be ridiculously more than the player's actual worth.

With regards to Nasri, I have never been a fan of his, always thought he was overrated and those stats you've mentioned prove me right. Lot of my gooner mates also said the same thing - he had one good season in the prem and he thought himself zidane's second coming. Andy Carroll's transfer to Liverpool should never be used as an example or benchmark in current transfer trend because no club in their right mind would have paid that much for him. The scum lost all business sense and common sense on that one.

Levy's just being Levy on this one.

Fair play, I always though Barca paid around 30 million for Masch.
I'd disagree Alonso is better than Modric, for me Modric is the better all round player, just my own opinion of course.

Whilst I'm no fan of Levy at all, I still think he's right with this one. Can you blame him for looking at certain transfers, like SWP, costing Chelsea over 20 million 6 or 7 years ago? Or the Torres, and Carroll deals? Or the money Liverpool paid for Aquilani? Or Nasri, a player 6 months away from a free transfer going for over 20 million? Or even the fact they got over 30 million from us for Berba, was he really so much better for them than Modric has been? I'd argue only 27 goals in 2 seasons at Spurs isn't that impressive and they received big money for him. Or the fact they could have gotten about 37 million 12 months ago from Chelsea, should Modric's value have dropped a million a month?

I think he's right to look at other players transfer fees and demand what he is for Modric, and the fact that someone is prepared to pay it justifies his stance.

[Deleted]

Alonso may well have only gone for 30mil but players value's have gone up since then

[karthy]

Modric's true value can and will always be debatable as a. you can attribute the current transfer scenario and say that its justified. or b. look at his goals and assists stats and say no its not justified.

But at the end of the day when clubs like RM, CIty, Chelsea are involved you are going to have crazy figures coming anyway and for a guy like Levy it is absolute Business sense that he get the maximum for what he has. He may be a bellend cunt but he is there to make money so i'd say he got what he wanted and the player what he wanted. His tag will be proven by how much effective he can be for RM.

[fletchabey]

Jul 30, 2012 1:30:43 GMT Raf's Hairdryer Treatment said:

Hearing arguments that Moura, who few know anything about, is worth the gamble at £30M. But Modric, who's proven himself to be one of the best midfielders in the EPL, is only worth £25M.

Madness.

Its not madness. Assuming the reports have been accurate on Moura, United thinks he's worth at least a £26mill gamble and they'd know more about him than any of us. That something to base spending £30mill on, not madness.

Modric though, remember the age. You spend £30mill on him and you'll get pittance after a few years service. Moura who knows could play for us for a several years then leave for double what we paid. Just an example. Our club so very rarely pays mega money for someone the wrong side of 27. Berba the prime example and goes to show that even 'premier league proven' players with plenty of experience can underwhelm. So yeh even Modric could be a 'gamble'.

Sure that might not be the way you want things run, you'd rather go the Real route of paying exorbitant fee's for ready made packages. Which is a bit easier when you have the government helping you out and completely stacked TV rights. Just pointing out that not the way we do things really. So yeh not really madness. Not that I'm dismissing Modric, but I've felt that as soon as nothing happened last year the boat had sailed.

[Raf's Hairdryer Treatment]

Jul 30, 2012 15:16:15 GMT fletchabey said:

Its not madness. Assuming the reports have been accurate on Moura, United thinks he's worth at least a £26mill gamble and they'd know more about him than any of us. That something to base spending £30mill on, not madness.

Assuming being the operative word. We have no real idea whether he'll make it in this league or whether he'll live up to his potential. Because as of yet that's all he is. United's knowledge as we've seen is not infallible and more importantly £26M is nowhere near £30M. The difference is more than enough to sew up Welbeck's contract for 4 years or Nani's for 2.

Jul 30, 2012 15:16:15 GMT fletchabey said:

Modric though, remember the age. You spend £30mill on him and you'll get pittance after a few years service. Moura who knows could play for us for a several years then leave for double what we paid. Just an example. Our club so very rarely pays mega money for someone the wrong side of 27. Berba the prime example and goes to show that even 'premier league proven' players with plenty of experience can underwhelm. So yeh even Modric could be a 'gamble'.

Few issues with this: Yes Modric could be a gamble. But surely you'd agree he's less of a gamble than Moura? Next, Modric isn't on the wrong side of 27. Finally, and this is my biggest gripe with our transfer policy, the sell on value argument, in my opinion is absolute horseshit. Recently we've only sold a few players on for massive profits. Ronaldo, Park and Rossi spring to mind. Park's career for us was over, and Rossi seemed to be surplus so I'll freely admit they were good business. But that leaves Ronaldo, which is where for me, the whole argument falls apart. The bottom line is; was Ronaldo's profit worth losing him for? If Madrid were willing to sell would you not have him back in a second? I for one would spill myself if we bid £80M knowing full well we'd not make the money back. Back to the this; if Moura did become the world class talent you're hoping for, would you then be happy selling him for £60M, or would you want him here until his career was dust?

Jul 30, 2012 15:16:15 GMT fletchabey said:

Sure that might not be the way you want things run, you'd rather go the Real route of paying exorbitant fee's for ready made packages. Which is a bit easier when you have the government helping you out and completely stacked TV rights. Just pointing out that not the way we do things really. So yeh not really madness. Not that I'm dismissing Modric, but I've felt that as soon as nothing happened last year the boat had sailed.

I don't want United paying silly money for players, nor do I want special privileges. But I don't mind taking a leaf out of Real's book and a ready made package is fine if the fee is right. Modric could easily give 6 of the best years of his career, and for that I'd say I couldn't give a fuck about his sell on value. Keeping talent here when they're at their peak for as long as possible is what I care about, profit margins I'd leave to the Glazers.

[majorred]

Lots of whispers saying Modric to United is back on. United willing to pay £30m - Spurs want £40m. Apparently Madrid won't budge from their £25m valuation.

[Chris]

Apparently, Real have agreed a deal and Modric is flying out tonight...





23million plus add on's!!



No value??