Do you look at the cost of a player or the quality when we sign someone?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Jim White has accused West Ham fans, amongst others, of focusing on the price of a player and not the quality of who've they've signed.

From what I've seen on here, I think he's got a point about some fans perceptions of signings.

[jdrobbo]

I’d like to think Quality. I wanted us to sign Charlie Taylor two years before he arrived and Jarrod Bowen when he first came onto the scene. Maja was another one, although yet to see where he ends up. There are some eye-watering fees paid out for average players. I firmly believe that Dyche goes for quality every day of the week.

[ClaretTony]

The cost of a player is what a club is prepared to pay to sign him - surely that shouldn't come into the equation when considering his performances.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The cost of a player is what a club is prepared to pay to sign him - surely that shouldn't come into the equation when considering his performances.

Some fans judge transfer windows on how much is spent, not just here and I think that's the point White is making.

[daveisaclaret]

Quality and opportunity cost.

The actual amount of money doesn't bother me (as long as it's a figure the club can afford) but the opportunity cost does matter. There's a big difference imo between spending £1m on Dale Stephens or spending £15m on Ben Gibson because the Stephens transfer shouldn't stop us being able to afford another midfielder if we still need one whereas the Gibson fee may have stopped us being able to afford (or justify the cost of) another defender.

In fairness to the West Ham fans, if we were continually wasting £40m on players who aren't close to being good enough I might start to worry about the price.

[Jakubs Tash]

I suppose it's all relative but I'm sure White means signings like Haller for £45m and Anderson for £36m etc - not the likes of Bowen and Benrahma who signed for much more realistic fees. There is nothing to suggest the likes of Haller and Anderson are better than the likes of Chris Wood (£15m) and Dwight McNeil. I don't think his comments are as applicable to Burnley because we would never buy players for huge sums - we do have to get with the programme though and stop low-balling with our bids for players of current day 'modest' values.

[s6t9a2f3f]

Last 2-3 windows Sheffield United have spent alot of money on what they thought was quality and hopefully to maintain their terrific performances of last season but at the moment it does not look money well spent.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I suppose it's all relative but I'm sure White means signings like Haller for £45m and Anderson for £36m etc - not the likes of Bowen and Benrahma who signed for much more realistic fees. There is nothing to suggest the likes of Haller and Anderson are better than the likes of Chris Wood (£15m) and Dwight McNeil. I don't think his comments are as applicable to Burnley because we would never buy players for huge sums - we do have to get with the programme though and stop low-balling with our bids for players of current day 'modest' values.

Yep if a club tells us they want 15m or 20m for someone who isn't of that value we should just pay it

[Zooniverser]

I can't remember!

[JohnMac]

Is it coincidence that 3 of our costliest players have regularly been the subject of arguments on here?

Gibson
Wood
Brady

[FeedTheArf]

I’d like to think Quality. I wanted us to sign Charlie Taylor two years before he arrived and Jarrod Bowen when he first came onto the scene. Maja was another one, although yet to see where he ends up. There are some eye-watering fees paid out for average players. I firmly believe that Dyche goes for quality every day of the week.

If you've watched the Sunderland til I die documentary Maja's agent doesn't come across well in orchestrating a move away. Can't see Alan Pace dealing with an agent like that following his recent comments but Maja the player shows a lot of promise. He's only on loan at Fulham so if they go down there's every chance he would be within our reach financially.

[FeedTheArf]

The cost of a player is what a club is prepared to pay to sign him - surely that shouldn't come into the equation when considering his performances.

Surely it's human nature though. If we sign a player who turns out to be rubbish he's going to get more grief if he was a 10m signing than a freebie. It's not logical and it's obviously not something the player has any control over, but it has to come into it.

Gibson is our joint record transfer and we've got next to nothing out of him (for various reasons). If he had come in on a free transfer nobody would have batted an eyelid that he hasn't contributed.

[Darthlaw]

Is it coincidence that 3 of our costliest players have regularly been the subject of arguments on here?

Gibson
Wood
Brady

I'd add Hendrick and Vydra to this list.

Interesting because I'd argue Wood definitely has justified his fee. Brady, Vyds and Hendrick will always cause arguments as none of them really set the world alight, whilst they've been here. Gibson, well enough said about him.

[ClaretTony]

Surely it's human nature though. If we sign a player who turns out to be rubbish he's going to get more grief if he was a 10m signing than a freebie. It's not logical and it's obviously not something the player has any control over, but it has to come into it.

Gibson is our joint record transfer and we've got next to nothing out of him (for various reasons). If he had come in on a free transfer nobody would have batted an eyelid that he hasn't contributed.

Doesn’t come into it at all for me

[Boss Hogg]

Depends what you mean by cost. A free transfer may cost the club more in wages than a player we have paid a fee for. If a contract has run down the player is cheaper but it doesn’t mean it’s a lesser player.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Depends what you mean by cost. A free transfer may cost the club more in wages than a player we have paid a fee for. If a contract has run down the player is cheaper but it doesn’t mean it’s a lesser player.

Some of our fans last summer were looking at the money spent by several clubs and having a fit because we only signed Stephens.
They didn't look at the quality of players signed I'm going to assume.

Now a number of these clubs have failed to move forwards much with that money spent and some have actually gone backwards.

Yet we've carried on as normal, working through a long injury list at times.

[Jakubs Tash]

Yep if a club tells us they want 15m or 20m for someone who isn't of that value we should just pay it

Yes, that's exactly what I was implying....

[Inchy]

Quality is what’s important but the fee paid plays it park.


The money we spend on our top players (10-20m) is always a gamble at this level. Take hendrick for example. Not a player I rated but he easily did enough to justify the money paid. Worth the gamble. Gibson is at the other end of that spectrum. Dyche will always make some signings that flop because we are not spending money which makes quality and success a certainty. Dyche gets it right more than wrong though, which is brilliant

[claptrappers_union]

I suppose it depends on the budget - but then again who can predict the future? Everything can be judged in hindsight. I don't think we've signed a player in a long time who hasn't, transfer-fee-wise, been a poor signing - the usual suspects who tend to make the lists have got a major injury at some point

Jon Walters (upto £3m)
Danny Drinkwater (50K a week loan)
Ben Gibson (upto £15m)
Robbie Brady (£13m) (unfair but I don't think we have had the best from him constantly)
Nahki Wells (£5m) (wasn't injured, but probably worth a punt)

All I think are justifiable transfer-fees when they signed on the dotted line though given what Premier League teams would normally pay.