Simmed 8 years and the transfer fees..

[Smurf]

And Greece won the Euros!

[Spurs08]

11 minutes ago, Smurf said:

I must have missed Darren Fletcher getting 36 goals in a season...

Goes to show - even winning all the titles in the world doesn't make you the best. So winning none at all, like Kane, must make him the worst, going by that logic. 

Or more to the point, that winning titles has a lot more to do with the team around you than individual skill or transfer value. Is Benzema very, very good? Of course. World class? Probably not. Neymar is world class and you'll note he went for a lot more than £75m.

[Smurf]

I must be in a paralell universe if Benzema isn't world class... or at least he was.

If Kane has half the career Benzema had he'll be a lucky man. 

By 24/25 Benzema had already won

Lyon
Ligue 1: x4

Coupe de France: x1
Trophée des Champions: x2

Real Madrid
La Liga:Copa del Rey: x1
Supercopa de España :x1
UEFA Champions League: x1
UEFA Super Cup: x1
FIFA Club World Cup: x1

 

Lets not belittle the people who have actually won an awful lot at 24/25 years of age and suggest that someone else who hasn't won anything yet is better...

That's just madness.

 

Kane really needs to step up - put in the transfer request, and do it at the highest level. 

 

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, Smurf said:

I see Spurs fans have assembled... it makes it dificult to have a logical conversation on this. 

All I can say is that Kane is 24, not 18, if he was 18 he'd command a huge fee for the form he's in. He's 24, never won a league, never won a cup, never got far in Champions League, and underperforms on the big stage internationally at competitions.

It's sad to say - but he's completely unproven at the top level. You cannot deny that. 

I'm not a Spurs fan.

Given than Spurs were able to sell Bale at the same point in his career for 80, before TV deals got even bigger. It's not unrealistic to argue he'd go for more than 100m.

CIES are probably the closest we'll get to trying to put an objective figure on a player, and as of June they had Kane at £153m

http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/192/en/

[Smurf]

I already said he could sell north of 100m ages ago.

I've no problem with that. I just think Daniel Levy and Spurs board would sell for less that £150m.

I've no basis for this. And I couldn't care less if he sold for 100m or 200m or 300m. 

I'm just saying the Spurs board would salivate at an offer of around £100m and sell. Like they did with Bale and Walker. 

 

 

 

[Smurf]

Sure they sold Modric for pittance.

Hey they might have learned from their lessons. 

They'd be mad to sell Kane, as no top striker in the world would consider playing for Spurs, so basically he is irreplaceable, therefore, he's priceless.

Therefore he'll stay at Spurs or run his contract out to move. 

Don't know how they could replace him, it would be impossible.

[nie jem frytek]

3 hours ago, Smurf said:

He's a good striker - but largely unproven

Smashing goals right and left 4th season in a row, largely unproven

[Smurf]

Out of context is great. It's meant on a world stage, for England, in the Champions League, winning titles, winning cups... 

If I asked you was better - Arthur Friedenrich or Pele - you'd ask me who the hell is Arthur Friedenrich. 

Well Friedenrich scored 1329 goals in  his career - over Pele who had 1,281 goals

If I was to ask you who Josef Bican or Romario was better - you'd ask me who the hell is Josef Bican - Bican played for Rapid Vienna and Prague and had a goal ratio of 1.52 per game. Highest goalscorer on 5 separate occasions in Europe. 

 

It's not really about goals is it? Well for a striker it is.. but it's what you're remember for. Nobody will remember Kane for being top goalscorer for Spurs who finished 4th every year. 

But they'd remember him if he finishes top goalscorer in tournaments for club and country - and be remembered for winning big games. 

 

But it hasn't happened yet... it just hasn't happened. 

 

[Sheriff7]

1 hour ago, Smurf said:

And Greece won the Euros!

Thanks!!Always glad hearing this again and again....By the way Greek league back then was 7th in European coefficients and we had 3!! teams in Champions League..........

[xambo]

6 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

I don't think there's anything raised in the original post I'd go as far to call a bug in fairness, the market now is suggesting players will move for close to and over £100m in some cases. 

If Harry Kane was to move now how much would you expect a team to have to pay?

That is about right as I bought him first season with Manchester United for £110m. Scored a goal on his debut. really enjoy seeing him and Lukaku upfront. 

[stoned_assasin]

You guys are comparing Kane to some great players of the past/present here. Kane is a very good player but nothing like half the players mentioned above he reminds me of someone like Van Nistoolroy. Feed him and he will score but thats the issue he relys very heavily on service where as the greats mentioned above can take a game by the scruff of the neck pretty much all alone hence why they are so expensive. You just cannot compare Kane to players like Zidane, Bale, Ronaldo etc as these players are different class.

 

Mbape is younger and more exciting and has proven himself more on the bigger stage and has won more than Kane already. He was not for sale and monaco didnt need the money yet many teams came in for him but what im see'ing here is that alot of you guys think Kane would fetch a similar fee which is just crazy. Mbabe ended up like i said being chased by half of EU even though he "wasnt for sale" and ended up going to the most craziest of clubs when it comes to paying fee's. Kane is great at his job but no way is he as exciting as the above players so he would not command a fee from the biggest clubs who only go for the very best talent.

 

He will simply not be sold as Spurs will ask for too much compared to what teams are willing to pay for him, but if they keep failing short of winning trophys then you could see Kane wanting out himself eventually which would then make his fee more realistic.

 

On the other hand he is English so we can add an extra £50 mill to any future fee .

[RandomGuy.]

Raheem Sterling cost more than Zidane, football transfers are trudging forwards all the time. 

For what it's worth, if you factor in inflation, Zidanes fee in the modern day would be around £130m.

Work it the other way and Sterling's fee would be around £30m back then. 

In relative terms, the same amount of money is being spent on the differing grades of players, the only difference is that clubs are making more money, so are spending more. 

If clubs continue growing at the rate they are, theres no argument anyone can put forward that £100m won't become the norm for "tier two" players. 

[Scrench]

If Kane goes anywhere it's going to be 150M+. No doubt about that. Spurs knows very well that demand is high.

[Spurs08]

8 hours ago, stoned_assasin said:

You guys are comparing Kane to some great players of the past/present here. Kane is a very good player but nothing like half the players mentioned above he reminds me of someone like Van Nistoolroy. Feed him and he will score but thats the issue he relys very heavily on service where as the greats mentioned above can take a game by the scruff of the neck pretty much all alone hence why they are so expensive. You just cannot compare Kane to players like Zidane, Bale, Ronaldo etc as these players are different class.

 

Mbape is younger and more exciting and has proven himself more on the bigger stage and has won more than Kane already. He was not for sale and monaco didnt need the money yet many teams came in for him but what im see'ing here is that alot of you guys think Kane would fetch a similar fee which is just crazy. Mbabe ended up like i said being chased by half of EU even though he "wasnt for sale" and ended up going to the most craziest of clubs when it comes to paying fee's. Kane is great at his job but no way is he as exciting as the above players so he would not command a fee from the biggest clubs who only go for the very best talent.

 

He will simply not be sold as Spurs will ask for too much compared to what teams are willing to pay for him, but if they keep failing short of winning trophys then you could see Kane wanting out himself eventually which would then make his fee more realistic.

 

On the other hand he is English so we can add an extra £50 mill to any future fee .

As someone who watches Spurs every game, the idea that Kane needs service more than other strikers is nonsense. He's extremely good at finding space and getting in good positions, and it's noticeable that there's a lot more chances created with him up front than when it's been any other forward.

[nicobile]

I hate seeing PSG so much in your transfer list. I hope they dont end up having 20 strikers roting in the bench like in 2017.

Also, talking about numbers, the only one that i see thats waaay off, is Mbappe to Real, the rest i can see them happening if the market stays the same for the next couple of years.

[Crispypaul]

18 hours ago, Smurf said:

Higuain was 75m only a year ago... 

Sorry - but Kane is good - but he's largely unproven on the world stage. 

Can't see anyone buying him for that when you can get a Lukaku, Augero, Cavani, Higuain, Suarez, Lewandowski, Costa, Aubameyang, Lacazete, Sanchez, Hazard, Griezman, Icardi, Morata, Dybala, Gotze, Mertens, Beleti or Gomez.. 

There's just far too many players that are better - and proven on the Word stage. Why pay over the odds for an unproven player, when you pay the same or less for a player that is proven.

There's only so many clubs in the world with that much money to buy Kane - so why would they over the list above?

Some of these are odd examples - Lukaku, Aubameyang, Laczaette, Mertens have hardly cleaned up.  I mean Mertens is 30 and all he has are two cup wins in his entire career.

A lot of those don't even play in the same position as Kane.

[bucket]

32 minutes ago, nicobile said:

I hate seeing PSG so much in your transfer list. I hope they dont end up having 20 strikers roting in the bench like in 2017.

Also, talking about numbers, the only one that i see thats waaay off, is Mbappe to Real, the rest i can see them happening if the market stays the same for the next couple of years.

They’ve moved a few players. Will have a look tonight. As far as I’m aware they’re not hoarding players and leaving them too rot. 

[nicobile]

9 hours ago, bucket said:

They’ve moved a few players. Will have a look tonight. As far as I’m aware they’re not hoarding players and leaving them too rot. 

Thanks! Would love to know if they are capable of maintaining a well made squad. 

[ParanoidBuddha]

No one can justify this ''Mbappe joined Real Madrid for £49m after 1 season''.

It's clearly a bug or anyways something that should be fixed before the release of the game

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, ParanoidBuddha said:

No one can justify this ''Mbappe joined Real Madrid for £49m after 1 season''.

It's clearly a bug or anyways something that should be fixed before the release of the game

Probably, worth remembering Ibrahimovic joining Barcelona for £48m then leaving them twelve months later for £20m. That's a smaller revenue loss than Mbappe for £50m I'm sure.

Could be Mbappe fell out with the manager/players and forced a move. Who knows. 

[Roy Race 9]

On 10/30/2017 at 04:24, Neil Brock said:

I don't think there's anything raised in the original post I'd go as far to call a bug in fairness, the market now is suggesting players will move for close to and over £100m in some cases. 

If Harry Kane was to move now how much would you expect a team to have to pay?

kane would be £150-200m so seeing huge fees I dont see a problem at all

the issue from the op is the one we have seen in previous versions

Mbappe signed for £160m sold for less than a third of that a year later thats not right

I have seen other examples of this for several years and reported them with clubs signing a player for huge fees not really playing them even sold the following year for peanuts

[ParanoidBuddha]

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Probably, worth remembering Ibrahimovic joining Barcelona for £48m then leaving them twelve months later for £20m. That's a smaller revenue loss than Mbappe for £50m I'm sure.

Could be Mbappe fell out with the manager/players and forced a move. Who knows. 

Do you think for real there is a possibiliyy that a team would sell after 1 only season a 18yo player for 145M € less?? No way, not even forcing the move

[Hilly27]

On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 19:00, Smurf said:

I'd actually love to see him go to Madrid, or anywhere other than Spurs. 

But why did Man Utd go for Lukaku and not Kane? It wasn't the fee that put them off.

Why did PSG go for Neymar and not Kane? It wasn't the money, that wasn't an issue.

When Barca sold Neymar, why didn't they buy Kane, they pursued Coutinho??? Why?  Money wasn't an issue. 

 

I'm just being honest. There's a reason why Kane hasn't moved to a top club. It can't be the fee - clubs have the money, that's not an issue. 

I was really giving you a huge benefit of the doubt young Smurf, until the above. You see, I tend to agree that 'Our 'Arry' has yet to prove himself over a long period at the highest level, but he's still young, as is the team he plays in. As a Spurs supporter for longer than I can remember I don't have any rose coloured glasses when it comes to Spurs. However, your remarks above show what appears to be a deep prejudice against Tottenham. Why would you, "love to see him go to Madrid, (and the big giveaway), "anywhere other than Spurs". Here we have a home grown, local lad playing for his local team, and, thus far, showing commendable loyalty to his club, something we rarely see in the game today, And you would want him anywhere but Spurs?

Your opinions lose their value and impact, if rooted in a deep dislike or prejudice against the subject you are opining on. Your remarks above seem to indicate just that.

You're not a Gooner are you?

[RandomGuy.]

40 minutes ago, ParanoidBuddha said:

Do you think for real there is a possibiliyy that a team would sell after 1 only season a 18yo player for 145M € less?? No way, not even forcing the move

Depends. Are we all sure the 145m is what PSG will have paid by the time he gets sold on? Or is that the complete figure once all the installments are paid in? 

It does seem entirely unlikely that Mbappe will be moving on, but I wouldn't say it's something that's impossible, especially if the 145m hasn't yet been paid in full, and the £45m is just an initial fee. 

[ParanoidBuddha]

21 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Depends. Are we all sure the 145m is what PSG will have paid by the time he gets sold on? Or is that the complete figure once all the installments are paid in? 

It does seem entirely unlikely that Mbappe will be moving on, but I wouldn't say it's something that's impossible, especially if the 145m hasn't yet been paid in full, and the £45m is just an initial fee. 

Edit, missunderstood. What do you mean saying ''the 145M has not been payed full''? Do you think that psg selling him before can avoid to pay an huge % of the player? Can you make me one example of a young player bought for a decent amount and sold the season after for less than 1/3?

[RandomGuy.]

8 hours ago, ParanoidBuddha said:

Edit, missunderstood. What do you mean saying ''the 145M has not been payed full''? Do you think that psg selling him before can avoid to pay an huge % of the player? Can you make me one example of a young player bought for a decent amount and sold the season after for less than 1/3?

I'm wondering if PSG will have only paid about £100m of the fee buy the time they sell him, maybe have clauses such as "goals scored/appearances/titles won" that trigger further payments. 

If they'd paid only £100m, then selling him for an initial £45m, doesn't seem totally ridiculous. 

Gaizka Mendieta, moved from Valencia to Lazio for €48m (6th most expensive player of all time at that point) was put out on loan the very next season and ended up leaving for a free. Only way it's not comparable is due to age and the fact Mbappe is French and so are PSG. Huge transfers going awry isn't a complete impossibility though. 

 

[Smurf]

10 hours ago, Hilly27 said:

I was really giving you a huge benefit of the doubt young Smurf, until the above. You see, I tend to agree that 'Our 'Arry' has yet to prove himself over a long period at the highest level, but he's still young, as is the team he plays in. As a Spurs supporter for longer than I can remember I don't have any rose coloured glasses when it comes to Spurs. However, your remarks above show what appears to be a deep prejudice against Tottenham. Why would you, "love to see him go to Madrid, (and the big giveaway), "anywhere other than Spurs". Here we have a home grown, local lad playing for his local team, and, thus far, showing commendable loyalty to his club, something we rarely see in the game today, And you would want him anywhere but Spurs?

Your opinions lose their value and impact, if rooted in a deep dislike or prejudice against the subject you are opining on. Your remarks above seem to indicate just that.

You're not a Gooner are you?

No - not a Gooner...

I suppose it's offensive that Morata went to Chelsea, and Pique played at Man Utd, Messi plays at Barcelona, and Ronaldo plays his football in Spain. 

Imagine the world's best players all staying in their home leauges, to stay loyal to the clubs they grew up beside. 

That would make a different world of football.

[Smurf]

Well this article just came out on the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41684602

Quote

"In Spain, we don't consider him in the top 10 world-class players because he has only been playing a couple of years and is only playing at Tottenham, who are not in the Champions League semi-finals or final," Juan Castro, a football journalist at Madrid-based sports newspaper Marca, said.

"Maybe in the Premier League he is an enormous player but if you go into a Spanish bar then not everyone knows him. He is not a big star.

"He has to prove it in a Champions League or a World Cup, like Luis Suarez, to demonstrate he is a master."

 

[Seqw]

56 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

If they'd paid only £100m, then selling him for an initial £45m, doesn't seem totally ridiculous. 

Oh, it seems totally ridiculous even so. 

[tajj7]

Kane is 24, on a long contract, integral to a side that has plenty of money and has a Chairman who is known to be a hard negotiator. 

He is also one of the most consistent scorers in the 5 top leagues over the last 3 years, and that is in a more competitive league not one where one/two teams dominate and have lots of easier games (like Barcelona/Real/Juve/Bayern have). He'd arguably have way more chances to score goals at one of those clubs, not only because of the better players around him but because they regularly face weaker teams, largely down to the money distribution in those leagues. Barca and Real have scored over 100 league goals in something like 9/10 last seasons and only lost around 30 games over that period. Much more cannon fodder in those league IMO where players pad their goals stats. Flat track bullying. 

If Harry Kane goes, and it'll likely only to be Real Madrid as I doubt he'll move to another Premier League team or PSG, and those are the only clubs I can see affording him, it'll be upwards of £150 million if not £200 million.

It even says that in the article you quoted. -

Quote

"Kane is certainly worth around £200m because you would benchmark him against other strikers of his calibre," said Kieran Maguire, a sport finance expert at the University of Liverpool.

and

Quote

current Real president Perez believes Spurs would demand around £223m (€250m) for their prize asset.

 

Anyway, those fees look in line with the world transfers going on. Aside Mpabbe being sold for £49 million.

I'd suspect in game the AI would probably sell Kane for around £100 million. 

[ParanoidBuddha]

On 29/10/2017 at 15:50, bucket said:

Just mental, Mbappe joined Real Madrid for £49m after 1 full season after the £160M full transfer. Thats crazy. Then 5 years later, rejoins Monaco for £104m!! The mind boggles...

Can you please report this to support?   as is noticeable from my pic I am not a psg fan but would make me sad to see something that unrealistic happen in my carrer

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, Seqw said:

Oh, it seems totally ridiculous even so. 

Even if the full transfer he leaves PSG for is nigh on £100m?

PSG pay £100m up front, player struggles for form, FFP comes down hard on PSG and forces them to bring in huge revenues to even up, PSG have to decide whether to try and sell half their squad, Neymar, or Mbappe who's contributing almost nothing. Team offer £45m to PSG for Mbappe which secures them through the FFP period and it can rise to almost what they'd paid for him. 

It's not totally unrealistic, to me. 

[tajj7]

I suppose it depends on if he is playing regularly. If he;s sat on the bench for a year then it makes more sense. 

[Midfield Triangle]

40 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Even if the full transfer he leaves PSG for is nigh on £100m?

PSG pay £100m up front, player struggles for form, FFP comes down hard on PSG and forces them to bring in huge revenues to even up, PSG have to decide whether to try and sell half their squad, Neymar, or Mbappe who's contributing almost nothing. Team offer £45m to PSG for Mbappe which secures them through the FFP period and it can rise to almost what they'd paid for him. 

It's not totally unrealistic, to me. 

Always someone defending the game no matter what. Its clearly wrong hes the most promising youth player in the world. Lets sell for about 115m loss after a year to one of the richest clubs there is. 

[rbnrbn]

I sold Firmino for £58M to Bayern on Beta. Game is clearly broken

[forameuss]

22 minutes ago, Midfield Triangle said:

Always someone defending the game no matter what. Its clearly wrong hes the most promising youth player in the world. Lets sell for about 115m loss after a year to one of the richest clubs there is. 

So just completely discount the perfectly sensible scenario that was put forward because of what?

The moment the game starts it moves away from reality.  A million scenarios could have happened that could have led to what did, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.  It's certainly better than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "fanboi lolz" until they go away.

[ParanoidBuddha]

16 minutes ago, forameuss said:

The moment the game starts it moves away from reality. 

Do you justify every mistake with this sentence? FM is a simulation game and should represent the reality, not a scenario that would NEVER happen. Even if Mbappè wouldn't respect the expectactions wouldn't be profiteable for psg sell him after 1 year for 1/3 of the price paid

[Seqw]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Even if the full transfer he leaves PSG for is nigh on £100m?

PSG pay £100m up front, player struggles for form, FFP comes down hard on PSG and forces them to bring in huge revenues to even up, PSG have to decide whether to try and sell half their squad, Neymar, or Mbappe who's contributing almost nothing. Team offer £45m to PSG for Mbappe which secures them through the FFP period and it can rise to almost what they'd paid for him. 

It's not totally unrealistic, to me. 

In what world PSG has to sell half of their squad to raise a measly 45 million?

That transfer is unrealistic and no amount of twisting the facts makes it less so.

Generally speaking PSG is unrealistically easy club to poach talent from in FM. Judging by what happened last summer they should probably be the toughest one. (cases of Verratti and Neymar made Barca look pretty small)

[forameuss]

13 minutes ago, ParanoidBuddha said:

Do you justify every mistake with this sentence? FM is a simulation game and should represent the reality, not a scenario that would NEVER happen. Even if Mbappè wouldn't respect the expectactions wouldn't be profiteable for psg sell him after 1 year for 1/3 of the price paid

Pretty much.  It represents a reality as derived from what reality was like when the game was coded.  Then every little action - given it isn't real life, and will probably never get that close to it - takes it further from that point.  I'm sure plenty of people would have thought it absolutely mental that someone would pay 200m+ for a player, until it happened.

[ParanoidBuddha]

Just now, forameuss said:

Pretty much.  It represents a reality as derived from what reality was like when the game was coded.  Then every little action - given it isn't real life, and will probably never get that close to it - takes it further from that point.  I'm sure plenty of people would have thought it absolutely mental that someone would pay 200m+ for a player, until it happened.

It's completely different.  Pay 200M a player can be a risk, sell the most promising young player in the world (with Donnarumma) for 1/3 price you payed is a sure an huge loss of money.
PS: teams gain year after year more then a transfer like that was not impossible to predict

[forameuss]

1 minute ago, ParanoidBuddha said:

It's completely different.  Pay 200M a player can be a risk, sell the most promising young player in the world (with Donnarumma) for 1/3 price you payed is a sure an huge loss of money.
PS: teams gain year after year more then a transfer like that was not impossible to predict

It's not really.  One year ago the sequence of events happening that did in real life would have been considered excessive.  It's an unusual occurrence, obviously, but always amuses me when people proclaim with absolute certainty what would never happen in the future in football.  Ten years ago they might have had a point, now, not so much.

Anyway, if it really generates that much seethe it should be raised to SI to have a look.  Might not be as fun as throwing out wild conjecture, but certainly more useful.

[ParanoidBuddha]

11 minutes ago, forameuss said:

It's not really.  One year ago the sequence of events happening that did in real life would have been considered excessive.  It's an unusual occurrence, obviously, but always amuses me when people proclaim with absolute certainty what would never happen in the future in football.  Ten years ago they might have had a point, now, not so much.

Anyway, if it really generates that much seethe it should be raised to SI to have a look.  Might not be as fun as throwing out wild conjecture, but certainly more useful.

But do you understand the difference there is economically between buy an expensive player and sell a 18yo player for the 1/3 (135M less) you payed the year before? They aren't comparable
Yes, I hope someone will look it

[Seqw]

14 minutes ago, forameuss said:

It's not really.  One year ago the sequence of events happening that did in real life would have been considered excessive.  It's an unusual occurrence, obviously, but always amuses me when people proclaim with absolute certainty what would never happen in the future in football.  Ten years ago they might have had a point, now, not so much.

200m transfer was inevitable and follows a path of growth in player values. The fact that it happened so soon was the surprise. But it makes 100% sense from an economical point of view.

And that really is totally different from the Mbappe transfer because him being sold for third of his value makes no sense from any point of view.

[bucket]

How about other users sim their games and see if this happens again? It could just be a one-off. I’ll do it again tonight and will post the results. 

[tajj7]

1 hour ago, Seqw said:

Generally speaking PSG is unrealistically easy club to poach talent from in FM. Judging by what happened last summer they should probably be the toughest one. (cases of Verratti and Neymar made Barca look pretty small)

That would be PSG that did this last summer -

Quote

When PSG signed Neymar and were threatened by Financial Fair Play (FFP) sanctions from UEFA, they were ready for a summer fire-sale. The agents of many members of the squad were contacted and asked if their clients would be willing to consider transfers. Only Blaise Matuidi, who was hurt by the actions of the club, did so, leaving for Juventus.

Any club with a bloated squad and spending £200 million on a player and massive wages will likely be willing to sell some of their players. 

[Maw74]

On 10/29/2017 at 18:03, Smurf said:

Spurs have a history of selling their top players for under £100m. 

As do most clubs.

Anyway at the time the Bale fee was a record.

[Seqw]

6 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

Any club with a bloated squad and spending £200 million on a player and massive wages will likely be willing to sell some of their players. 

Yes, makes sense to sell some of the lesser players. My point was that in FM you can buy some of their best players whereas in real life it hasn't happened since the takeover. Barca tried to get Verratti but ended up losing Neymar. Zlatan they let go for free in good spirit and Luiz & Matuidi were considered surplus to requirements.

I'm not saying that it's a huge problem and we can't expect the AI to be perfect but it's somewhat unrealistic how even the richest clubs let their better players go without a fight. Then they go and buy someone as expensive but in many cases not as good player. Usually IRL every club tries to keep their key players till the bitter end.

[Smurf]

1 hour ago, Maw74 said:

As do most clubs.

Anyway at the time the Bale fee was a record.

Yes - but most clubs aren't talking about selling their striker for 200m. 

And nobody really questioned Bale's fee - strange that.

[footy1]

You can't say player prices aren't getting more inflated. Young players who show world class potential like Mbappe and Dembele are going for 100m+, with Lemar nearly going for 90 on deadline day. That simply wouldn't have happened 5 years ago.

These aren't world class players like Bale and Ronaldo, these are potentially world class players. Yet they are going for far higher fees.

The figures quoted in the inital post seem entirely within the realms of possibility to me.

[Hilly27]

7 hours ago, Smurf said:

No - not a Gooner...

I suppose it's offensive that Morata went to Chelsea, and Pique played at Man Utd, Messi plays at Barcelona, and Ronaldo plays his football in Spain. 

Imagine the world's best players all staying in their home leauges, to stay loyal to the clubs they grew up beside. 

That would make a different world of football.

I think you're glossing over the point I was making. Whilst we all know money talks in modern football, then surely all true football fans would welcome a top player staying at his home club, who ever that player is, or whatever club it happens to be.  The point you fail to address, is your statement that Kane should be at any other club but Tottenham.  History matters, and in English football, Tottenham have been history makers, as have many of their players. So why shouldn't Harry stay at Spurs?