Length of contract

[supersub]

Obviously, I understand that a player has more value, the longer he is contracted to a club, but...

What I don't understand is the sort of the thing I keep reading about Dempsey's contract - such as Rodgers "can't afford to match the £10 million valuation of a player who has only a year left on his contract" (Telegraph today). In this case, what has the length of the contract got to do with it?

Either Liverpool have the money or they don't. Either they want him or they don't. Of course, if Dempsey's contract runs down, he will be available for free next summer. But if Liverpool want him NOW, what difference does the remaining length of his Fulham contract make?

Would they be able to afford to pay £10 million for him if he had two years left on his Fulham contract? And why...? They might well want to get him on the cheap (which is what I suspect all this fuss is about), but this excuse doesn't stand up.

[supersub]

Not just me, then?!

[alexbishop]

I absolutely agree. Believe this was discussed at length in an older Dempsey topic a while ago. Someone used the metaphor of a one of a kind special edition car being released and you really really like the car and want the car for your collection. It's on sale for 70k now and it's guaranteed to be yours or you can wait a year and you can have it for free but you'll be queuing up with a hundred other people who also want the car. You're going to buy it now aren't you?

[Airfix]

Hmm, I read the thing differently.

The comment "... who has only a year left on his contract" is, to me, more for information than a bar to the transfer. 

To explain, read it this way: "Rogers can't afford Dempsey, who has only a year left on his contract, at £10m", then it makes sense.

[CH FFC]

Hmm, I read the thing differently.

The comment "... who has only a year left on his contract" is, to me, more for information than a bar to the transfer. 

To explain, read it this way: "Rogers can't afford Dempsey, who has only a year left on his contract, at £10m", then it makes sense.

I understand how you are reading this, but the fact is Liverpool are still trying to bring in other players.  So in fact they can "Afford" Dempsey, they just do not want to pay £10m that FFC is asking.

I think it is just a way to try and get him on a cheap.

If RVP is worth £24m than Dempsey a versatile midfielder is worth at the minimum £10m. 

[supersub]

Hmm, I read the thing differently.

The comment "... who has only a year left on his contract" is, to me, more for information than a bar to the transfer. 

To explain, read it this way: "Rogers can't afford Dempsey, who has only a year left on his contract, at £10m", then it makes sense.

Yes, it could be read like that - but why link the two "facts"? And there have been plenty of other examples of why £10m is apparently too much for someone with only a year left on his contract. If Liverpool paid the money, they could have Dempsey with three years on his contract - and it would be THEIR contract.

[westcliff white]

i read it as this for me, it is if the club want some money in for him if we do we will sell.

Arsenal generate a lot of cash thru retail sales etc, a lot more than us, the make more on match day tickets and programs and food sales etc so they can afford to play hard ball a lot more than us. the sad reality to a degree is we will have to possibly accept less than we all know he is worth rather than get nothing.

But in theory the logic of he has a price if liverpool want him they should pay it is sound, just in this reality it may not be the case.

[bob]

Standard economics, supply and demand . . .

The selling club is faced with a choice if the player won't re-sign: let the player go for free, or sell him a year out.

The selling clubs usually don't want to let a player go for nothing, and the buying clubs know that they're faced with this choice - recoup some money or get nothing - and therefore they can bid less and expect to see it accepted.

Essentially, the option for the selling club is not their valuation or a lower offer, as it is a couple years out - it's free or a lower offer. The lower offer is better than free, hence, the clubs will accept a bid lower than they'd like, the buying clubs know this, and won't bid full price.

(Unless the club decides that the lower offer is not the better option, and it's worth more to get one more year out of the player, as FFC is apparently doing with Dempsey.)

It's kinda like when a winter jacket goes on sale in the spring time. The store is faced with a choice of selling it for a reduced price, or getting nothing for it. It doesn't really mean that jacket is worth less, it just means that economically, the best option is to sell it for less than they normally would have, rather than get nothing for it.

[supersub]

I understand that, Bob, from the seller's point of view, but I'm talking about the buyer. If I need that winter coat right now (like Liverpool apparently need Dempsey) then it's no good waiting for the sale, when I know I can get it cheaper. I'll have frozen to death by then.

[Berserker]

could buy cheap coat plus cheap jumper