Transfer value - do we get financial value from our purchases?

[Mister E]

Not according to this study, although I haven't dug into the robustness of the analysis so cannot warrant its credibility.
https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2022/wp389/en/

[eamonn]

Haven't clicked for fear that it's Villadawg back to what he did best.

[Risso]

It's almost entirely impossible to know if it's any good or not. It's a comparison of transfer fees paid to estimated actual market value. Who's doing the estimating and what they base the numbers on isn't clear. It also says that "Deals concluded by triggering buy-out or option-to-buy clauses were not included in the sample analysed" so I assume they've ignored the Greasy deal then.

[dave.woodhall]

Does it just say 'No'?

[OCD]

How we used the Grealish money says it all really.

[Shrek]

We are shocking at this side of football.
Players like ElGhazi, Nakamba, Guilbert are players we should be getting fees for, but we literally devalue every play we buy and let them go for free or a nominal fee.

It’s unsustainable and something we need to improve

[PeterWithesShin]

You've got the best part of £140m not counted judging by their wording as Risso says. Grealish, Benteke and Gueye. All sold as release clauses were triggered.

[eamonn]

We are shocking at this side of football.
Players like ElGhazi, Nakamba, Guilbert are players we should be getting fees for, but we literally devalue every play we buy and let them go for free or a nominal fee.

It’s unsustainable and something we need to improve

I'm not sure we'll ever improve it as we're forever chasing to be a top six/eight club and having to pay top six/eight wages to do so. Invariably we always fuck it up, and are left with players under-performing who can only be sold at a loss because their next movement is downward and their new club can't afford the wages that Villa have paid them.

But we will get better at selling good youth prospects who aren't going to be first team regulars, hence the high numbers we have out on-loan playing at a decent standard (i.e Ch'ship).
There's already an agreement in place with Watford (according to The Athletic) for Davis to go there permanently for £10m-£15m next summer if he stays fit (yeah, I know...) and there'll be others in his wake.

[SoccerHQ]

Wasn't it said we overpaid for Wesley by 4-5m as if transfer fee is 20m + it's easier to get a work permit. Luiz may have fitted in that category aswell although he had a decent season in La Liga at least.

That's another 20m asset who seemingly we'll lose for free or cut price deal in January.

[eamonn]

Worth it for the 3 more corner goals he'll get before 2023.

[ChicagoLion]

It’s one of those problems that takes a while to sort out. You can’t just get better at selling over night but the first thing you do when in a hole is stop digging and it doesn’t look like we have yet.

[Mister E]

It's almost entirely impossible to know if it's any good or not. It's a comparison of transfer fees paid to estimated actual market value. Who's doing the estimating and what they base the numbers on isn't clear. It also says that "Deals concluded by triggering buy-out or option-to-buy clauses were not included in the sample analysed" so I assume they've ignored the Greasy deal then.

You're right, and the authors concede the point, that transparency in transfer matters is somewhat blurry.
The Grealish deal was triggered from an informal agreement not from a buy-out or option-to-buy clause in his contract, so I'm guessing it would have been included (if within the timescale, since it is not clear what the exact cut-off of the dates is between 2012-2021).
It would, of course, have included all the bum / unfortunate deals we did (e.g. Kozak, Okore, Gil, Sissokho, Gestede, McCormack, Tshibola, Hogan, Kalinic, Samatta), as well as the much-fewer better sales, including homegrown players (e.g. Benteke, Cieran Clark, Baker, Westwood).

[Smithy]

It’s one of those problems that takes a while to sort out. You can’t just get better at selling over night but the first thing you do when in a hole is stop digging and it doesn’t look like we have yet.

You also can't get better at selling when the quality of the goods you inherited is not very good.  There are lots of flaws in this analysis, but the big ones are obviously the fees based on release clauses (which invariably lead to a profit for us anyway) and the fact that just because you spend £10m on a player and sell him for £3m doesn't automatically mean it was a "bad purchase".  You could have got four or five years of excellent service from that player, which was well worth the £7m investment.  The estimates themselves are always wrong as well, who would have estimated Chuck at £20m, or Richarlison at £58m, or Cucrella at £65m?  The reality is, that if a player is in demand, they go for crazy prices, and so far the only players we've really done that with are Jack and Chuck - and neither of those are included in that analysis as they were both homegrown.

Also, as Villa supporters, we tend to focus on our own bad signings, when the reality is that every other club does it, too.  One of my best friends is a West Ham fan, and he is forever moaning about the money they waste on transfers and how they "ruin" players (sound familiar?). Whereas I only tend to see the good ones they've bought, Bowen, Soucek etc.  Nikola Vlašić was last season's moan by him.  £30m to buy him, and now sent out on loan with an option to buy to someone in Italy.   Haller was the one before that, spending £45m back when that was still an awful lot, selling him for half that two years later to Ajax, who made a decent profit selling him on again a year later.  He will swear blind West Ham are terrible in the transfer market.

I'm not saying we're good at this side of the transfer business, but I don't think we are half as bad as some make out, and certainly not as bad as those stats make out - especially if you only consider our business since the new owners took over.

[FatSam]

Seems a bit arbitrary to ignore buy out or option to buy clauses as these are all commercial agreements. Seeing Atalanta in deficit suggests that it’s unrealistic to expect to be in profit, or just inaccurate.