‘No value in the market’ - 2026

[Rozay]

Caveated by the obvious fact that it is of course still very early in the window - however - there seems to be a reawakening of a spirit of 20 years ago so far in the market.

After years of Woodward - Welcome Back. From ‘we can do things in the transfer market no other club can’, are we now entering a ‘we cannot do things in the transfer market other clubs can’ phase?

 

[Chairman Steve]

It’s likely there’s no value in the Premier League market, but there’s plenty of other bodies of water to go fishing in. There will be cheaper and potentially better value but riskier since you don’t know how they’ll do in the Premier League until you actually put them in there.

But this is why the likes of Vivell and Sansoni were brought in, international scouting and data driven analytics, to reduce that risk of a lower profile overseas player not adapting well

We seem to be keeping our cards close to our chest at the moment, compared to our domestic peers. Spurs are making a lot of noise but they almost have to considering their back to back 17th finishes, which is horrific for a club of their resources.

 

[Rozay]

It’s likely there’s no value in the Premier League market, but there’s plenty of other bodies of water to go fishing in. There will be cheaper and potentially better value but riskier since you don’t know how they’ll do in the Premier League until you actually put them in there.

But this is why the likes of Vivell and Sansoni were brought in, international scouting and data driven analytics, to reduce that risk of a lower profile overseas player not adapting well

We seem to be keeping our cards close to our chest at the moment, compared to our domestic peers. Spurs are making a lot of noise but they almost have to considering their back to back 17th finishes, which is horrific for a club of their resources.

There’s no value ‘to us’ though. Other clubs are finding value in the same market. We have been completely desperate for quality midfielders for years now, and in that time - Chelsea, Arsenal and City have all paid over £100m for a PL midfielder, with even Spurs now willing to go beyond us.

I have no issue, in principle, with us not paying what we think is a fair price for certain players. I’m less comfortable however, the fact that our definition of an unfair price is not being shared by our league rivals. That tells me that we need to perhaps readjust our valuation process. I think £85m for Fernandes is more than I would have hoped to pay. But if we are seeking quality midfielders in a market where quality midfielders are all priced at 80m, what is our final decision? To simply cede players to other teams who are comfortable spending big money, or do we engage at the level set by the market?

What happens when Bournemouth ask the same price for Alex Scott? We don’t pay it, but another club does? The price for Fernandes is the going rate. In and around what is quoted for Tonali, Scott, Wharton, Baleba even. The prices are not deterring buyers. They are only deterring Manchester United. We cannot even try to claim some ‘clubs are trying to take advantage of Manchester United’ thing that we are fighting on principle - clubs are setting prices for their top midfielders and Arsenal, Chelsea, City and now fecking Spurs are getting with the programme, while we, who probably has the greatest midfield need of all - are standing on some sort of principle.

 

[DWelbz19]

We’re running “responsible club” gimmick at a time we need our most important midfield reboot after making CL football again for the first time in over 3 seasons. Cool

 

[Annihilate Now!]

There’s no value ‘to us’ though. Other clubs are finding value in the same market. We have been completely desperate for quality midfielders for years now, and in that time - Chelsea, Arsenal and City have all paid over £100m for a PL midfielder, with even Spurs now willing to go beyond us.

I have no issue, in principle, with us not paying what we think is a fair price for certain players. I’m less comfortable however, the fact that our definition of an unfair price is not being shared by our league rivals. That tells me that we need to perhaps readjust our valuation process. I think £85m for Fernandes is more than I would have hoped to pay. But if we are seeking quality midfielders in a market where quality midfielders are all priced at 80m, what is our final decision? To simply cede players to other teams who are comfortable spending big money, or do we engage at the level set by the market?

What happens when Bournemouth ask the same price for Alex Scott? We don’t pay it, but another club does? The price for Fernandes is the going rate. In and around what is quoted for Tonali, Scott, Wharton, Baleba even. The prices are not deterring buyers. They are only deterring Manchester United. We cannot even try to claim some ‘clubs are trying to take advantage of Manchester United’ thing that we are fighting on principle - clubs are setting prices for their top midfielders and Arsenal, Chelsea, City and now fecking Spurs are getting with the programme, while we, who probably has the greatest midfield need of all - are standing on some sort of principle.

It's not though because West Ham are in the championship. It's literally an unprecedented fee for a relegated player.

 

[Roboc7]

There’s no value ‘to us’ though. Other clubs are finding value in the same market. We have been completely desperate for quality midfielders for years now, and in that time - Chelsea, Arsenal and City have all paid over £100m for a PL midfielder, with even Spurs now willing to go beyond us.

I have no issue, in principle, with us not paying what we think is a fair price for certain players. I’m less comfortable however, the fact that our definition of an unfair price is not being shared by our league rivals. That tells me that we need to perhaps readjust our valuation process. I think £85m for Fernandes is more than I would have hoped to pay. But if we are seeking quality midfielders in a market where quality midfielders are all priced at 80m, what is our final decision? To simply cede players to other teams who are comfortable spending big money, or do we engage at the level set by the market?

What happens when Bournemouth ask the same price for Alex Scott? We don’t pay it, but another club does? The price for Fernandes is the going rate. In and around what is quoted for Tonali, Scott, Wharton, Baleba even. The prices are not deterring buyers. They are only deterring Manchester United. We cannot even try to claim some ‘clubs are trying to take advantage of Manchester United’ thing that we are fighting on principle - clubs are setting prices for their top midfielders and Arsenal, Chelsea, City and now fecking Spurs are getting with the programme, while we, who probably has the greatest midfield need of all - are standing on some sort of principle.

Have to wait and see, if we end up paying 80m for Scott it won’t look great, if we end up paying that for Baleba it will be pretty farcical. If we’re scrambling around paying 35-50m for likes of Adams or Berge then there will be uproar.

The prices are deterring buyers, Arsenal and PSG moved on from Fernandes, Arsenal and City don’t seem eager to spend big on Toanli either despite having previous interest. The big question is have we identified alternatives because they are out there.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

There’s 0 value in the premier league market, however we would need to identify alternatives a quickly before we get quoted premier league prices.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

I would much rather trust the people who did a good job in the market last year over fans who obviously don't know anything about the negotiations

 

[Rozay]

It's not though because West Ham are in the championship. It's literally an unprecedented fee for a relegated player.

Can’t say I didn’t wonder whether someone would try the ‘well Fernandes isn’t a PL player’ angle but I perhaps gave a little too much credit.

He’s obviously a player who has made his reputation in the PL, and has earned his high value as a result of this. Players of his level, in England, are valued at his price - this is quite obviously not Spurs buying Hayden Hackney for 85m.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Can’t say I didn’t wonder whether someone would try the ‘well Fernandes isn’t a PL player’ angle but I perhaps gave a little too much credit.

He’s obviously a player who has made his reputation in the PL, and has earned his high value as a result of this. Players of his level, in England, are valued at his price - this is quite obviously not Spurs buying Hayden Hackney for 85m.

I mean he's had one good season in the Premier League, but nevertheless he is still a relegated player - all relegated players are, by virtue, Premier League players.

Again it's literally an unprecedented fee.

 

[Borys]

Prices are the problem because we need a lot of players. It's a minor issue if you are just missing a couple of top class players.

Also clubs will take us the the cleaners knowing we have a single senior midfielder in the squad.

 

[Rozay]

Have to wait and see, if we end up paying 80m for Scott it won’t look great, if we end up paying that for Baleba it will be pretty farcical. If we’re scrambling around paying 35-50m for likes of Adams or Berge then there will be uproar.

The prices are deterring buyers, Arsenal and PSG moved on from Fernandes, Arsenal and City don’t seem eager to spend big on Toanli either despite having previous interest. The big question is have we identified alternatives because they are out there.

I’m not sure the prices are deterring buyers. And I would say that both clubs seem quite interested in Tonali, they haven’t walked away the way that we have. If either of them signed him, he’d be their second 100m+ midfielder too.

I agree with you though, it is obviously very early - but the two leading candidates on the market have now both gone. It’s not as if they haven’t walked away stayed put at their clubs - they have been bought by other PL clubs because they are willing to pay more than us for quality in what is known to be our absolute number one priority position too.

 

[Duffman2]

I have found that the market for “talents” have gone ballistic, but players in their prime years and late prime are far more reasonable. Especially as a lot of talents never live up to the hype.

I think we did the right thing last year going for prime year players in Cunha and Mbemuo. Right now though, there are few prime years midfielders that are available, but I would much rather spend £80m for Bruno G than Fernandes.

 

[Rozay]

I mean he's had one good season in the Premier League, but nevertheless he is still a relegated player - all relegated players are, by virtue, Premier League players.

Again it's literally an unprecedented fee.

But it’s not an unprecedented fee for a top young midfielder who has shown his quality in the PL. In fact, it’s the going rate.

Ordinarily, the best young midfielders in the PL do not get relegated, that’s the only difference here. Lavia cost circa. £60m 3 years ago. And whatever we think of the fee - my ultimate point is that it was not prohibitive, only prohibitive to Manchester United. That is a bigger problem.

The point I’m making here is that even at £85m, Fernandes was not priced out of a move. He was just priced out of a move to Manchester United. That shouldn’t be how it is for the self-proclaimed biggest club in the land and one who wants to win the league.

 

[Fooza]

it's "we won't make the same mistakes over paying" - 2026 that's the new no value in the market

it's working, a lot of people loving that quote, I certainly go sleep feeling better we have low wages and pay less now

 

[2 man midfield]

The thing is, the first time round it was because of genuine penny pinching. The top players were out there (Hazard, Benzema, Robben) but we wouldn't pay the money needed to land the very top players. This time, I think we have money and are willing to spend it, but there literally is no value in a market where even average-decent players are going for what we've seen.

If you can't even get unproven at European level players from championship clubs for less than 85m, then I agree with them. Go and find better value elsewhere.

 

[pcaming]

INEOS have begun their Niceifying of United.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

We’ve never had consecutive good windows since SAF retired have we? We go big, make the CL and rest on our laurels.
Let’s hope we aren’t making that same mistake again.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

But it’s not an unprecedented fee for a top young midfielder who has shown his quality in the PL. In fact, it’s the going rate.

Ordinarily, the best young midfielders in the PL do not get relegated, that’s the only difference here. Lavia cost circa. £60m 3 years ago. And whatever we think of the fee - my ultimate point is that it was not prohibitive, only prohibitive to Manchester United. That is a bigger problem.

The point I’m making here is that even at £85m, Fernandes was not priced out of a move. He was just priced out of a move to Manchester United. That shouldn’t be how it is for the self-proclaimed biggest club in the land and one who wants to win the league.

I can't think of many 21 years old with one decent season that have been sold for anywhere close to £85m? I suppose Brighton wanted £100m for Baleba but we rightfully baulked at that.

Anyway I really don't think you can discount the relegation factor in all this. Bowen is old now granted but say if he was 26... Would you expect clubs to play the going rate for wingers for him? It's never worked like that.

Also, as an aside, 3 years on... Was Lavia even worth £53m!?

 

[Rozay]

it's "we won't make the same mistakes over paying" - 2026 that's the new no value in the market

it's working, a lot of people loving that quote, I certainly go sleep feeling better we have low wages and pay less now

Whatever time we perceived we were ‘overpaying’ for players - we were not getting outspent by the the other big clubs in the league. We were at the top and still had things our own way.

Simply withdrawing from the top end of the market while rivals are not doing the same is expected to take us where exactly?

 

[Rozay]

I can't think of many 21 years old with one decent season that have been sold for anywhere close to £85m? I suppose Brighton wanted £100m for Baleba but we rightfully baulked at that.

Anyway I really don't think you can discount the relegation factor in all this. Bowen is old now granted but say if he was 26... Would you expect clubs to play the going rate for wingers for him? It's never worked like that.

Also, as an aside, 3 years on... Was Lavia even worth £53m!?

I don’t think Bowen is the right example. If Bournemouth went down this summer, Kroupi would attract a similar bidding war and unless they were completely desperate - he would go for £80m minimum.

And I’m not sure if whether Lavia is worth it really matters. You can look back at any signing. You can ask whether Pogba was worth £89m after the fact (a WC winning, Serie A winning midfielder who was a very different profile to Lavia). Some would say no. All that matters is whether clubs think it’s the right deal at the right time.

 

[SilentWitness]

It does interest me as to what you do next. If relegated West Ham can demand 85m for a midfielder then why on earth would Brighton, the kings of getting over inflated fees, not demand the same or more for Baleba for example.

 

[Rozay]

We’ve never had consecutive good windows since SAF retired have we? We go big, make the CL and rest on our laurels.
Let’s hope we aren’t making that same mistake again.

Off the top of my head, our biggest windows are rarelt from a position of ‘strength’.

 

[RedIan]

Im so glad we didn't go for Fernadez, hes been relegated twice with different teams employing him in their midfield. £85m is a joke fee.
Anderson is a talent but he wanted city so thats that and we were never into the £100mil plus scene.

No need to panic, we have one midfield body in early. World cup watch now to talent spot.

 

[Fooza]

Whatever time we perceived we were ‘overpaying’ for players - we were not getting outspent by the the other big clubs in the league. We were at the top and still had things our own way.

Simply withdrawing from the top end of the market while rivals are not doing the same is expected to take us where exactly?

I don't think it's solely on Fernendes, he has a hefty wage as it is. But overall, the club don't want to spend on their top targets who we chased for awhile, it could end up backfiring if we go for more PL midfielders as clubs will also bump their price up, time will tell if the "no value in the market" will end causing desperation and panic buys later

 

[NotChatGPT]

The thing is, the first time round it was because of genuine penny pinching. The top players were out there (Hazard, Benzema, Robben) but we wouldn't pay the money needed to land the very top players. This time, I think we have money and are willing to spend it, but there literally is no value in a market where even average-decent players are going for what we've seen.

If you can't even get unproven at European level players from championship clubs for less than 85m, then I agree with them. Go and find better value elsewhere.

Weird players to bring up.

We rightly baulked at the agent fee for Hazard and Benzema wanted Real Madrid. Doubt Fergie would’ve been too bothered about the agent fee if Mendes was involved, but not much to do about Benzema

Robben was a feck up, as we’d spent ages tapping him up, but Kenyon was also heavily involved so god knows, the bald twat fecked us over on quite a lot.

 

[Roboc7]

I’m not sure the prices are deterring buyers. And I would say that both clubs seem quite interested in Tonali, they haven’t walked away the way that we have. If either of them signed him, he’d be their second 100m+ midfielder too.

I agree with you though, it is obviously very early - but the two leading candidates on the market have now both gone. It’s not as if they haven’t walked away stayed put at their clubs - they have been bought by other PL clubs because they are willing to pay more than us for quality in what is known to be our absolute number one priority position too.

Anderson didn’t want to sign for us, Spurs were willing to pay way more than anyone else for Fernandes, everyone else walked away. The only way Spurs could sign him was by deterring everyone else with the fee and wages.

A year ago Fernandes cost 40m, that’s when we should have bought him, that’s where the value is, two years ago Anderson was 35m. It’s players like Ayari, Sidiki etc who potentially offer the value and some Premier League experience.

 

[bucky]

I can't think of many 21 years old with one decent season that have been sold for anywhere close to £85m? I suppose Brighton wanted £100m for Baleba but we rightfully baulked at that.

Anyway I really don't think you can discount the relegation factor in all this. Bowen is old now granted but say if he was 26... Would you expect clubs to play the going rate for wingers for him? It's never worked like that.

Also, as an aside, 3 years on... Was Lavia even worth £53m!?

He's had 3 good season for his age and relative who he played for.

 

[2 man midfield]

Weird players to bring up.

We rightly baulked at the agent fee for Hazard and Benzema wanted Real Madrid. Doubt Fergie would’ve been too bothered about the agent fee if Mendes was involved, but not much to do about Benzema

Robben was a feck up, as we’d spent ages tapping him up, but Kenyon was also heavily involved so god knows, the bald twat fecked us over on quite a lot.

Rightly? Hazard's agent wanted 6m, which would've brought the total fee to 38m - i'd say that would've been money well spent. Especially considering that 2 years before we were happy to basically give Mendes 7m, using Bebe as a front. We played the game, we just didn't play it wisely.

We also did the same with Lucas Moura though, so we didn't get them all wrong.

 

[Crimson King]

At no point have those words been uttered by anyone at end club during this transfer window

 

[JB7]

But it’s not an unprecedented fee for a top young midfielder who has shown his quality in the PL. In fact, it’s the going rate.

Ordinarily, the best young midfielders in the PL do not get relegated, that’s the only difference here. Lavia cost circa. £60m 3 years ago. And whatever we think of the fee - my ultimate point is that it was not prohibitive, only prohibitive to Manchester United. That is a bigger problem.

The point I’m making here is that even at £85m, Fernandes was not priced out of a move. He was just priced out of a move to Manchester United. That shouldn’t be how it is for the self-proclaimed biggest club in the land and one who wants to win the league.

He was priced out of a move to every big club credited with half an interest in him which included us, Real, PSG, Arsenal and has ended up going to the one club stupid enough to pay what West Ham wanted.

The overreaction to us not overpaying by about £30m for a perfectly-ok-at-best midfielder has been absolutely fecking insane.

 

[acolyte]

It's not though because West Ham are in the championship. It's literally an unprecedented fee for a relegated player.

I'm sorry, but "relegated player" is a technicality and a massive cope. You realize teams consist of more than 1 player right? He's not the reason they were relegated. He's earned his transfer and whatever fee a team thinks is worth paying.

 

[DWelbz19]

Off the top of my head, our biggest windows are rarelt from a position of ‘strength’.

It’s basically the opposite. Every time a manager has secured CL football the follow up window has been quite mediocre

 

[Rozay]

Anderson didn’t want to sign for us, Spurs were willing to pay way more than anyone else for Fernandes, everyone else walked away. The only way Spurs could sign him was by deterring everyone else with the fee and wages.

A year ago Fernandes cost 40m, that’s when we should have bought him, that’s where the value is, two years ago Anderson was 35m. It’s players like Ayari, Sidiki etc who potentially offer the value and some Premier League experience.

Well by the same token, Fernandes ‘didn’t want to sign for us’ either as he is signing for Spurs instead. That misses out the reason he didn’t want to (and likely Anderson too) is because another employer is offering him more money.

And of course, would have been great to get him for 40m, or Anderson for 35m, or Caicedo for 6m. The main point is that we are still trying to best teams who are also willing to get them for 80m-100m+, while we are not.

I’ve said all along, I have less of an issue with us setting a price. I’m more concerned that the prices we are setting for our primary targets are below what our competitors are setting for them, and our master plan seems to be on hoping they had baby pictures in United kits.

 

[sp_cgb]

"No value in the market" is never an excuse. We were promised a "best in class" recruitment structure, when Ineos came in. Their job is to find value and the best players to bring us closer to a title challenge. If they don't, they're not doing a good job and should be sacked on the spot. In a league with several other ambitious clubs investing heavily you can't just stand still. Doing that will cripple our finances even further, when we inevitably slide back into midtable.

 

[SungSam7]

Funny how Klopp could make it work right away at Liverpool in his first full season.

Only 2 players were bought from the Premier League. (Mane and Wijnaldum).
3 from outside the league (Klavan, Karius and Matip).

2017/18. 4* from the league (Solanke, Robertson* relegated with Hull, Chamberlain, VVD* in that January)
2 outside (Salah, Keita)

2018/19. 1* in the league (Shaqiri* relegated with Stoke)
2 outside the league (Fabinho, Alisson)


I havent included all purchases made by him up to 2019. My statement above he bought 50% of his players from in and out of the league.

But if you were to do it up until 2019 including all purchases, it would 57% was bought outside.

The point I am making is, we dont need to be chasing premier league players all summer if there is options which of course there are.

 

[Rozay]

He was priced out of a move to every big club credited with half an interest in him which included us, Real, PSG, Arsenal and has ended up going to the one club stupid enough to pay what West Ham wanted.

The overreaction to us not overpaying by about £30m for a perfectly-ok-at-best midfielder has been absolutely fecking insane.

He wasn’t priced out though. Those clubs were clearly not as interested in him as reported. It’s disingenuous to try and pretend Spurs have won a battle against PSG and Real. They have won a battle against Manchester United.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Rightly? Hazard's agent wanted 6m, which would've brought the total fee to 38m - i'd say that would've been money well spent. Especially considering that 2 years before we were happy to basically give Mendes 7m, using Bebe as a front. We played the game, we just didn't play it wisely.

We also did the same with Lucas Moura though, so we didn't get them all wrong.

As i said, i doubt Fergie would have baulked at the agent fee if it was Mendes, but lets not pretend it was a low fee at the time. Especially when you consider it was paid under the table.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I'm sorry, but "relegated player" is a technicality and a massive cope. You realize teams consist of more than 1 player right? He's not the reason they were relegated. He's earned his transfer and whatever fee a team thinks is worth paying.

I mean there's only one team that think he's worth paying that for?

That's like saying Antony was worth whatever we paid for him because we paid it.

I don’t think Bowen is the right example. If Bournemouth went down this summer, Kroupi would attract a similar bidding war and unless they were completely desperate - he would go for £80m minimum.

And I’m not sure if whether Lavia is worth it really matters. You can look back at any signing. You can ask whether Pogba was worth £89m after the fact (a WC winning, Serie A winning midfielder who was a very different profile to Lavia). Some would say no. All that matters is whether clubs think it’s the right deal at the right time.

See that's where we'll disagree... If Bournemouth went down I'd expect Kroupi would go for a lower fee then normal.

The thing is these players usually want to leave and the club have to sell. It's always been the way. Spurs could have almost certainly got him for cheaper if they'd waited it out but they obviously wanted to get it done for whatever reason (competition most probably)

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

I would much rather trust the people who did a good job in the market last year over fans who obviously don't know anything about the negotiations

Agreed. Save the bed wetting for the end of the window if we’ve done a shite job.