FC Bayern Forum

Their deal with psg has nothing to do with their deal with us.

Yes they had a steal from PSG. And overall they've had a good deal and earned some money, but their deal with us was horrible for them, and great for us. A loan for TWO years, and if he turns out worth more than 20M (could be 50-60) then they get an addition sum of just 20M. If he isn't worth 20M in two years well then they probably won't need him either.

And on top of that 20M in two years time really isn't as much as it sounds. First of all the massive inflation I wonder what sums will be like in 2017 as well as for those with some knowledge in finance would know that with interest rates/investments 20M in two years is really a much lower sum right now.

Bayern did a great deal.
Juve messed up.

At what price do 18-20 year olds usually go? Anyone who pays over 30M for an 18-20 year old is insane.

JANCKER wrote:At what price do 18-20 year olds usually go? Anyone who pays over 30M for an 18-20 year old is insane.

*Looks at Manchester United*

Rauntšik wrote:

JANCKER wrote:At what price do 18-20 year olds usually go? Anyone who pays over 30M for an 18-20 year old is insane.

*Looks at Manchester United*

But we sell our legend to them for like 9M... and he won them that much the first hour with jerseys.

Jancker has to be either an absolute troll or the most bitter person I've ever seen...

1. We've got an absolute top talent on a 2 year loan with an option to buy (very cheap investment risk-wise). The kid is probably worth about 40m after his first season with us (if he were English he would be worth 60 or 70!). He's already looking like a perfect Ribery successor at the age of 19, enough said.

2. Our legend wanted to leave and has barely played for United, and whenever he played he was bad. Get over it, Bastian is pretty much finished, he wouldnt have contributed to us at all and *wanted* to leave, so let him earn his big pay retirement at Manchester in peace... If you look at it from a rational POV, he was only going to be a burden to us if he had stayed, with his status we would have been forced to play him and he wasn't doing well, we couldn't have brought Vidal with Schweini still here.


Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk

He was worth 10M according to transfermarkt when we signed him... he's worth 15M now, not 40M... maybe you'd find MUFC willing to pay even 100M for him now but he was not worth that much in the summer, we made the best offer for him.
He was worth 10M in a permanent deal, we will pay 8M for 2 years... tell me, how did Juve make a bad deal?

Could you be kind enough to tell us what did tranfermarkt say about De Bruyne's value when he moved?

What does it say about Müller? Thanks!

Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk

PunkCapitalist wrote:Could you be kind enough to tell us what did tranfermarkt say about De Bruyne's value when he moved?

What does it say about Müller? Thanks!

Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk

Are talking about real value or what some crazy clubs are willing to throw at you?
Martial was one crazy exception in this business, I can't remember when was the last time when someone 18-20 year old was sold for more than 30M... please, enlighten me.
And Coman is no De Bruyne or Mueller, barely anyone heard of him before moving here... he didn't have those crazy clubs behind him for some reason, because it took good scouting to see that he was special.
And even then we weren't ready to bet on him and seal a permanent deal for him, but we wanted a loan first because we weren't sure that he was worth that pricey tag so please cut the crap.
I'm not saying that we made a bad deal, but Juve can be happy as well, it was a good deal for both, 28M is not to throw away and they're a selling club.

Idk if you can tell whose chart is this... he's still worth today more than for what he was sold.



If Pogba was really worth 100M, we'd go for him, don't you think? That's not his real value...

PunkCapitalist wrote:Could you be kind enough to tell us what did tranfermarkt say about De Bruyne's value when he moved?

What does it say about Müller? Thanks!

Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk

You are "debating" with Jancker? Good luck with that... Block list is your friend.

All this transfermarkt talk I feel like we should have a basic understanding of the terms everyone is casually throwing around

If Juve wanted to keep him they wouldn't have agreed on this deal. If he turns out crap they still got it covered with that 8M, which was about his real value for a permanent deal. You can look it up and research the most promising talents and see how much they were worth at Coman's age, not a single one crossing 30M.
Juve will sell Pogba sooner than later also... If you think that they would change their mind about Coman, think again.
Coman was for like a year at Juve and he cost them 0 $ and they'll end up getting 28M for him if he doesn't do a Shaqiri, they want that 28M.
Saying that Juve made a mistake for letting him go for 28M it's like saying that Sporting did a mistake for selling CR7 for only £12.24 when they could've sold him to Madrid for 100M, which is a ridiculous theory.
Shaqiri was valued at 20M but we signed him for 10M.
Take care...

JANCKER, it goes to show that the estimates are just that, estimates, made by football fans like me and you. It's not a science and doesn't always translate into the same valuation by a professional scout or the club owners who watch him train on a daily basis.

Despite the Coman deal, Juve have traditionally been the most well run club in Italy. While the Agnellis have bankrolled the club at times, there has been much more consistency to them than Milan or Inter. Even with the Calciopoli scandal, it is Juve who has most often formed the backbone of succesful Italian national teams. And while Inter and Milan would often go for Hollywood purchases, Juve was the one to buy solid players and usually turn them into stars.

Their rebuild after Calciopoli is epic compared to the advantages that Inter and Milan enjoyed. Not only have they completely overtaken them on the field, but off the field is where the difference is largest. They are the first club in Italy to build and own their football-specific stadium, which has been a tremendous asset for them. Other clubs are light years behind this.

Relative to their resources, only Bayern are a better managed club in Europe I'd say.

As for the others, I am not sure about Altetico's ranking. While Simeone's reign has masked some of their flaws and could eventually become the building block for the club to really grow on, they have actually been a perpetually mismanaged club in the past. They have huge debts, I think larger than Barca and Real as a % of their revenue. At the turn of the century they were relagated and for a long time they were passed by Valencia and Sevilla as the third team in Spain eventhough Atletico has better resources (history, location, youth teams) than them. If Simeone can keep doing what he's doing for a few more years and with a new stadium being finished next year, they might just become a success story though.

If you would have asked me 2-3 years ago, I would have said that Arsenal have been extremely well managed. They were able to self finance a brand new, state of the art stadium, while maintaining their Top 4 status eventhough few quality purchases were made. Management and coaching deserves huge respect for that. However, ever since their debt burden has been reduced, I expected them to push on to higher goals. They have yet to achieve that. The fact that clubs like Dortmund, Atletico, Juve have achieved a lot more than them in Europe even with much less resources should be a very disturbing fact for them.

As for well managed, I'd say at this point Dortmund should be considered. Their rise, and re-rise post Klopp, while keeping all their stars, points to a strong managment core in addition to their coaching. The purchase of Weigl suggests that their scouting remains excellent besides Klopp and they are also trying to push their youth teams more. I really hope they push on and reach their 2012-13 heights again because the BuLi really needs them.

PSG I'd agree are very well run from the oil clubs. While there are some troubles at times with their players, they also seem to have a sense of professionalism that isn't always present with City and Chelsea. They are very close I think to breaking the Barca-Bayern-RM trio that has sort of dominated Europe in the last half decade.

So I'd say in no particular order after Bayern, Juve, Dortmund and PSG are the clubs I'd mention. I guess Barca would be fifth due to their sheer amount of success and their youth work in the previous decade, but their resources also suggest that they should be quite successful. Messi alone though also has covered for a lot of their flaws though.

No other "big" club comes as close as these I'd say. There are probably other success stories around Europe like Southampton, Mainz, Napoli, Porto, Basel, Gladbach recently etc. But comparing between them is difficult given that their goals and resources are quite different.

endrity wrote:Despite the Coman deal, Juve have traditionally been the most well run club in Italy. While the Agnellis have bankrolled the club at times, there has been much more consistency to them than Milan or Inter. Even with the Calciopoli scandal, it is Juve who has most often formed the backbone of succesful Italian national teams. And while Inter and Milan would often go for Hollywood purchases, Juve was the one to buy solid players and usually turn them into stars.

Their rebuild after Calciopoli is epic compared to the advantages that Inter and Milan enjoyed. Not only have they completely overtaken them on the field, but off the field is where the difference is largest. They are the first club in Italy to build and own their football-specific stadium, which has been a tremendous asset for them. Other clubs are light years behind this.

Relative to their resources, only Bayern are a better managed club in Europe I'd say.

As for the others, I am not sure about Altetico's ranking. While Simeone's reign has masked some of their flaws and could eventually become the building block for the club to really grow on, they have actually been a perpetually mismanaged club in the past. They have huge debts, I think larger than Barca and Real as a % of their revenue. At the turn of the century they were relagated and for a long time they were passed by Valencia and Sevilla as the third team in Spain eventhough Atletico has better resources (history, location, youth teams) than them. If Simeone can keep doing what he's doing for a few more years and with a new stadium being finished next year, they might just become a success story though.

If you would have asked me 2-3 years ago, I would have said that Arsenal have been extremely well managed. They were able to self finance a brand new, state of the art stadium, while maintaining their Top 4 status eventhough few quality purchases were made. Management and coaching deserves huge respect for that. However, ever since their debt burden has been reduced, I expected them to push on to higher goals. They have yet to achieve that. The fact that clubs like Dortmund, Atletico, Juve have achieved a lot more than them in Europe even with much less resources should be a very disturbing fact for them.

As for well managed, I'd say at this point Dortmund should be considered. Their rise, and re-rise post Klopp, while keeping all their stars, points to a strong managment core in addition to their coaching. The purchase of Weigl suggests that their scouting remains excellent besides Klopp and they are also trying to push their youth teams more. I really hope they push on and reach their 2012-13 heights again because the BuLi really needs them.

PSG I'd agree are very well run from the oil clubs. While there are some troubles at times with their players, they also seem to have a sense of professionalism that isn't always present with City and Chelsea. They are very close I think to breaking the Barca-Bayern-RM trio that has sort of dominated Europe in the last half decade.

So I'd say in no particular order after Bayern, Juve, Dortmund and PSG are the clubs I'd mention. I guess Barca would be fifth due to their sheer amount of success and their youth work in the previous decade, but their resources also suggest that they should be quite successful. Messi alone though also has covered for a lot of their flaws though.

No other "big" club comes as close as these I'd say. There are probably other success stories around Europe like Southampton, Mainz, Napoli, Porto, Basel, Gladbach recently etc. But comparing between them is difficult given that their goals and resources are quite different.

Fair assessment. When I mentioned Atlético I meant short-term. What Simeone has done with very little resources is outstanding.

Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk

ramsej84 wrote:1. Bayern
2. Juventus
3. Atletico Bilbao
4. Atletico Madrid
5. Everton

what do you guys think about Bilbao? Is it not something special the way how they do it?
And I lately I really started admiring Everton... they brought in some very interesting players... and introduced some of their products plus also brought in a highly intelligent manager.