LINK: http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/165545-liverpool-complete-lallana-deal

I don't really know how to feel about this. I feel that he was a bit overpriced at $41.7 million (Australian currency)

Thoughts?

LINK: http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/165545-liverpool-complete-lallana-deal

I don't really know how to feel about this. I feel that he was a bit overpriced at $41.7 million (Australian currency)

Thoughts?

Im silent about this, i dont know much about the player, but it seems that its an expensive bargain, anyway welcome to CL level Lallana :).

Im silent about this, i dont know much about the player, but it seems that its an expensive bargain, anyway welcome to CL level Lallana :). We will see his worth soon...

"Clearly United felt that Shaw was worth the 30m, and clearly Liverpool felt that Lallana was worth the 25m, and why shouldn't they? Fabregas just returned to the league for 32m, despite having under-achieved at Barcelona, and Modric was purchased from lowly Tottenham for 33m, in the other direction."

• Shaw's transfer fee is understandable from the perspective of a club that can afford to dish out 30 Million Euros on platters. United is not one of them. If I am not mistaken, there had been multiple financial issues since the Glazer family had taken over, and it left many United fans crying out for unpaid debts. United's decision to spend so much on Luke Shaw is understandable, but poses a massive risk to them if Shaw does not pay off well, and would make them look incredibly foolish. Remember, United are dishing out more for Shaw than they did for Cristiano Ronaldo, who became one of their greatest ever players. Just think about that for a minute.

Lallana's transfer fee is only beaten by Carroll's, in terms of L'pool records. If they think that Lallana is worth that much, then fine. But again, remember that they spent 35 M on Carroll, and 20 M on Downing, and we both know how well those two turned out for them....

Finally, you know well enough that the transfers of Cesc and Luka were done by two clubs with bottomless budgets (RM, Chelsea). We're talking about the kind of retards who would break the world record for a transfer fee four times (Zidane, Kaka, Ronaldo, Bale). That kind of money is what you expect them to spend. But a closer look at Modric's reputation at the time as one of the PL's top, TOP midfielders, and Cesc's preceding reputation of massive success and domination in England's premier tier shows you that 33 M for Modric and 32 M for Cesc is completely justified.

"Considering Lallana is younger then them both, and costs more then 5m (again, Pounds) less than these two players, 25m is really not a terribly inflated price."

• Yes, you are right. His price is inflated, but not that much. However, Liverpool do not have the budgets of Real Madrid or Chelsea, so a little bit of bargaining would be expected. If they have bargained, and this is the price they have agreed on, then it should say quite a bit of how much the British players are really priced in the market.

"(and for the record, I don't see why Thiago deserves to be considered worth more than what was paid for him. He's a fine player, but, is he really that good? I have not yet seen him earn even the price-tag he carried, and the same goes for Isco, though I'm certainly happy to be enlightened if you think you can demonstrate on their behalf)"

• In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot.

Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree), scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level. It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara.

@Dynast:

"Shaw's transfer fee is understandable from the perspective of a club that can afford to dish out 30 Million Euros on platters. United is not one of them."

Okay, I have two issues with that statement, Firstly, it's not really true, because United are one of the richest clubs in the world, in terms of assets. This is why they were prepared to go over 100m for Bale, last summer; the club's finances are up there with the biggest hitters, due to their enormous marketing presence worldwide (bigger than Real or Barca, in fact), and their stadium capacity. So, they really can afford it.

But, even if they could not, is the issue about how much United spent, or how much Southampton demanded? If he's 'overpriced', then surely the buying power of the buying club doesn't matter?

"Remember, United are dishing out more for Shaw than they did for Cristiano Ronaldo, who became one of their greatest ever players. Just think about that for a minute."

Okay, but why is that important? So they got a bargain out of Ronaldo. So has every team who ever bought a (relatively) cheap young player which turned into a superstar.

David Luiz just cost 50m. Why are we quibbling about Luke Shaw again?

"But again, remember that they spent 35 M on Carroll, and 20 M on Downing, and we both know how well those two turned out for them...."

Yes, but that's an issue with them buying large-priced flops. Every team has done that. How much did Ibra cost Barcelona, again? How much did the first Galacticos cost, and how much of that was worth it in championships? Every big team has high-priced flops in their history. Hell, remember that Spurs bought the man (Soldado) who was La Liga's 3rd-best striker (behind Messi and Ronaldo) for 3 years in a row for 30m and he flopped. Just because Liverpool made some laughable boo-boos with Carroll and Downing doesn't mean that the price-tag on Lallana is hugely inflated because of irrational English over-rating, which was the point, remember?

"But a closer look at Modric's reputation at the time as one of the PL's top, TOP midfielders, and Cesc's preceding reputation of massive success and domination in England's premier tier shows you that 33 M for Modric and 32 M for Cesc is completely justified."

Well, be careful there. Because you see, while Madrid fans NOW know how good Modric is, before that I bet no-one in SPain had even heard of him. Remember how much they called him a flop when he arrived, at the Bernabeu. Here's some fun irony: we also called him a flop at Spurs, in his first season. How many Real fans, this time last year, would have agreed that his 33m was justified? Not many, I reckon. Why? Because he was some Croatian man playing in the 4th-5th best team in England, who had not been precisely what Real fans wanted when he arrived. Did you also know that Chelsea had offered 40m for Modric the year before, and Spurs said no, even though it was more money?

Lallana is a man who was recognized as one of the PL's top midfielders last season, eveb whilst playing at a club with no right (on paper) to get as high in the table as they did. Why should he not be considered worth 25m to another English club? If a Spanish club were buying him, then maybe he'd only be 18-20m. But since it's a PL club, therefore a rival, and with more money? It's 25m.

That's the REAL reason there's price-inflation, and PL clubs do it with ALL of their players. Chelsea could not have bought Fabregas for 32m, from Arsenal. There is no way in hell Wenger would have let that happen for less than 45m. As it was to Barca? Shave 10m off his price.

That's how it works. I'd love to see the price-tag Atletico would put on Koke if, say, Barcelona wanted hi... oh yeah it's 60m.

See what I mean?

@Dynast:

"Shaw's transfer fee is understandable from the perspective of a club that can afford to dish out 30 Million Euros on platters. United is not one of them."

Okay, I have two issues with that statement, Firstly, it's not really true, because United are one of the richest clubs in the world, in terms of assets. This is why they were prepared to go over 100m for Bale, last summer; the club's finances are up there with the biggest hitters, due to their enormous marketing presence worldwide (bigger than Real or Barca, in fact), and their stadium capacity. So, they really can afford it.

But, even if they could not, is the issue about how much United spent, or how much Southampton demanded? If he's 'overpriced', then surely the buying power of the buying club doesn't matter?

"Remember, United are dishing out more for Shaw than they did for Cristiano Ronaldo, who became one of their greatest ever players. Just think about that for a minute."

Okay, but why is that important? So they got a bargain out of Ronaldo. So has every team who ever bought a (relatively) cheap young player which turned into a superstar.

David Luiz just cost 50m. Why are we quibbling about Luke Shaw again?

"But again, remember that they spent 35 M on Carroll, and 20 M on Downing, and we both know how well those two turned out for them...."

Yes, but that's an issue with them buying large-priced flops. Every team has done that. How much did Ibra cost Barcelona, again? How much did the first Galacticos cost, and how much of that was worth it in championships? Every big team has high-priced flops in their history. Hell, remember that Spurs bought the man (Soldado) who was La Liga's 3rd-best striker (behind Messi and Ronaldo) for 3 years in a row for 30m and he flopped. Just because Liverpool made some laughable boo-boos with Carroll and Downing doesn't mean that the price-tag on Lallana is hugely inflated because of irrational English over-rating, which was the point, remember?

"But a closer look at Modric's reputation at the time as one of the PL's top, TOP midfielders, and Cesc's preceding reputation of massive success and domination in England's premier tier shows you that 33 M for Modric and 32 M for Cesc is completely justified."

Well, be careful there. Because you see, while Madrid fans NOW know how good Modric is, before that I bet no-one in Spain had even heard of him. Remember how much they called him a flop when he arrived, at the Bernabeu. Here's some fun irony: we also called him a flop at Spurs, in his first season. How many Real fans, this time last year, would have agreed that his 33m was justified? Not many, I reckon. Why? Because he was some Croatian man playing in the 4th-5th best team in England, who had not been precisely what Real fans wanted when he arrived. Did you also know that Chelsea had offered 40m for Modric the year before, and Spurs said no, even though it was more money?

Lallana is a man who was recognized as one of the PL's top midfielders last season, eveb whilst playing at a club with no right (on paper) to get as high in the table as they did. Why should he not be considered worth 25m to another English club? If a Spanish club were buying him, then maybe he'd only be 18-20m. But since it's a PL club, therefore a rival, and with more money? It's 25m.

That's the REAL reason there's price-inflation, and PL clubs do it with ALL of their players. Chelsea could not have bought Fabregas for 32m, from Arsenal. There is no way in hell Wenger would have let that happen for less than 45m. As it was to Barca? Shave 10m off his price.

That's how it works. I'd love to see the price-tag Atletico would put on Koke if, say, Barcelona wanted hi... oh yeah it's 60m. I'd love to see the price put on Illarramendi... oh yeah it was 37m. Alberto Moreno... 25m+.

See what I mean?

@Dynast:

"Shaw's transfer fee is understandable from the perspective of a club that can afford to dish out 30 Million Euros on platters. United is not one of them."

Okay, I have two issues with that statement, Firstly, it's not really true, because United are one of the richest clubs in the world, in terms of assets. This is why they were prepared to go over 100m for Bale, last summer; the club's finances are up there with the biggest hitters, due to their enormous marketing presence worldwide (bigger than Real or Barca, in fact), and their stadium capacity. So, they really can afford it.

But, even if they could not, is the issue about how much United spent, or how much Southampton demanded? If he's 'overpriced', then surely the buying power of the buying club doesn't matter?

"Remember, United are dishing out more for Shaw than they did for Cristiano Ronaldo, who became one of their greatest ever players. Just think about that for a minute."

Okay, but why is that important? So they got a bargain out of Ronaldo. So has every team who ever bought a (relatively) cheap young player which turned into a superstar. Why wasn't this an issue when they bought Wayne Rooney for 26m when he was only 18 (a whopping ten years ago), or Rio Ferdinand for 30m in 2002? Rio was only 24 at the time.

David Luiz just cost 50m. Why are we quibbling about Luke Shaw again?

"But again, remember that they spent 35 M on Carroll, and 20 M on Downing, and we both know how well those two turned out for them...."

Yes, but that's an issue with them buying large-priced flops. Every team has done that. How much did Ibra cost Barcelona, again? How much did the first Galacticos cost, and how much of that was worth it in championships? Every big team has high-priced flops in their history. Hell, remember that Spurs bought the man (Soldado) who was La Liga's 3rd-best striker (behind Messi and Ronaldo) for 3 years in a row for 30m and he flopped. Just because Liverpool made some laughable boo-boos with Carroll and Downing doesn't mean that the price-tag on Lallana is hugely inflated because of irrational English over-rating, which was the point, remember?

"But a closer look at Modric's reputation at the time as one of the PL's top, TOP midfielders, and Cesc's preceding reputation of massive success and domination in England's premier tier shows you that 33 M for Modric and 32 M for Cesc is completely justified."

Well, be careful there. Because you see, while Madrid fans NOW know how good Modric is, before that I bet no-one in Spain had even heard of him. Remember how much they called him a flop when he arrived, at the Bernabeu. Here's some fun irony: we also called him a flop at Spurs, in his first season. How many Real fans, this time last year, would have agreed that his 33m was justified? Not many, I reckon. Why? Because he was some Croatian man playing in the 4th-5th best team in England, who had not been precisely what Real fans wanted when he arrived. Did you also know that Chelsea had offered 40m for Modric the year before, and Spurs said no, even though it was more money?

Lallana is a man who was recognized as one of the PL's top midfielders last season, eveb whilst playing at a club with no right (on paper) to get as high in the table as they did. Why should he not be considered worth 25m to another English club? If a Spanish club were buying him, then maybe he'd only be 18-20m. But since it's a PL club, therefore a rival, and with more money? It's 25m.

That's the REAL reason there's price-inflation, and PL clubs do it with ALL of their players. Chelsea could not have bought Fabregas for 32m, from Arsenal. There is no way in hell Wenger would have let that happen for less than 45m. As it was to Barca? Shave 10m off his price.

That's how it works. I'd love to see the price-tag Atletico would put on Koke if, say, Barcelona wanted hi... oh yeah it's 60m. I'd love to see the price put on Illarramendi... oh yeah it was 37m. Alberto Moreno... 25m+.

See what I mean?

Part 2:

"In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot."

Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?

"Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree),"

Then why did Barcelona let him go?

"scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level."

Unsurprising given that he is 5 years older, and came through the academy of, y'know, Barcelona. It's not like he didn't get a good start in life, is it? And why did they sell him, again? Why wasn't he featuring more/enough to satisfy him?

"It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara."

Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep.

Also: Julian Draxler is 40m.

Again, this is not an issue with English players any more than others. I'm really tired of people picking on English players and English football, when they give absolute passes to anything German and Spanish, even when the exact same thing is right in front of them.

It should stop, to be honest.

Part 2:

"In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot."

Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?

"Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree),"

Then why did Barcelona let him go?

"scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level."

Unsurprising given that he is 5 years older, and came through the academy of, y'know, Barcelona. It's not like he didn't get a good start in life, is it? And why did they sell him, again? Why wasn't he featuring more/enough to satisfy him?

"It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara."

Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep.

Also: Julian Draxler is 40m.

Again, this is not an issue with English players any more than others. I'm really tired of people picking on English players and English football, when they give absolute passes to anything German and Spanish, even when the exact same thing is right in front of them.

It should stop, to be honest.

Part 2:

"In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot."

Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?

"Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree),"

Then why did Barcelona let him go?

"scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level."

Unsurprising given that he is 5 years older, and came through the academy of, y'know, Barcelona. It's not like he didn't get a good start in life, is it? And why did they sell him, again? Why wasn't he featuring more/enough to satisfy him?

"It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara."

Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep.

Also: Julian Draxler is 40m.

Again, this is not an issue with English players any more than others. I'm really tired of people picking on English players and English football, when they give absolute passes to anything German and Spanish, even when the exact same thing is right in front of them.

It should stop, to be honest.

Part 2:

"In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot."

Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?

"Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree),"

Then why did Barcelona let him go?

"scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level."

Unsurprising given that he is 5 years older, and came through the academy of, y'know, Barcelona. It's not like he didn't get a good start in life, is it? And why did they sell him, again? Why wasn't he featuring more/enough to satisfy him?

"It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara."

Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep.

Also: Julian Draxler is 40m.

Again, this is not an issue with English players any more than others. I'm really tired of people picking on English players and English football, when they give absolute passes to anything German and Spanish, even when the exact same thing is right in front of them.

I think it should stop, to be honest.

Part 2:

"In the season prior to his transfer, Isco had put in a major contribution to his team in finishing 4th place in La Liga, reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League (massive for a club that was and still is in debt), won the Golden Boy award for best U-21 player in EUROPE!!, won La Liga's Breakthrough Player of the Year award in 2012, and put in some outstanding performances in Spain's U-21 EURO conquest, where he won the competition and won the Bronze Boot."

Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?

"Thiago Alcantara had been highly toted as Xavi's heir by almost everyone (you're entitled to your own opinion here, but mass majority would disagree),"

Then why did Barcelona let him go?

"scored a goal from 50 yards in the final of EURO U-21 in 2011..... and went to win the same competition in 2013 with a Golden Ball and Silver Boot as well. Thiago had already played 160 professional club games by the time of his transfer, compared to Shaw's 67..... showing his experience and success at the top level."

Unsurprising given that he is 5 years older, and came through the academy of, y'know, Barcelona, the club who give their academy players more game-time than practically any other club except perhaps Ajax. It's not like he didn't get a good start in life, is it? And why, after all that exposure to the Barcelona players and fans, did the club sell him, again? Why wasn't he featuring more/enough to satisfy him?

"It's incredible to think that Jack Wilshere is valued and Raheem Sterling is paid more than Thiago Alcantara."

Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep.

Also: Julian Draxler is 40m.

Again, this is not an issue with English players any more than others. I'm really tired of people picking on English players and English football, when they give absolute passes to anything German and Spanish, even when the exact same thing is right in front of them.

I think it should stop, to be honest.

@Lodatz

"Sounds great. Why did he then spend his time playing second-fiddle to the chap bought from Tottenham for roughly the same amount of money?"

Multiple reasons. One was that Isco does not tactically fit in to Ancelotti's 4-3-3. Isco is a false nine or an attacking midfielder. Modric's massive ability to control the entire pitch is almost irreplaceable, and you know very well why Luka is chosen over Isco. Isco is one for the future, while Modric is already the finished product.

"Then why did Barcelona let him go?"

• Well, that's a question I'd like to ask them too. Because they're sure as hell suffering now. Thiago also handed in a transfer request in himself after Tito Vilnanova didn't give any of the youngsters enough playing time.

"Not really, when again you consider that the PL is the richest league, with the highest wages (across the breadth of the league). Wilshire I do agree is over-rated, but that's because he plays at Arsenal, whose players are usually over-rated because Wenger makes them look good. Still doesn't change the reasons why the prices are so steep."

• Richest league, yes, but Madrid is one of the richest clubs. You'd think that Madrid would pay Isco ridiculous amounts, but that's not the case. Sterling is paid a massive wage of around 150,000 Pounds per week, while Isco lives off around 70-80,000 Euros a week.

"Also: Julian Draxler is 40m. How does THAT compare to Thiago?"

• Via transfermarkt, player values (in millions of Euros)

Gerard Deulofeu - 12
Raheem Sterling - 13
Luke Shaw - 13 (bought for some 30 in Euros.... almost triple his value)
Illarramendi - 18 (clearly Sociedad had Madrid hell-bent on getting him...)
Romelu Lukaku - 25
Julian Draxler - 30
Koke - 30
Thiago - 30 (bought for 22-25)
Isco - 35 (bought for 27)
Eden Hazard - 45 (bought for some 40)
Paul Pogba - 45
Mesut Ozil - 50 (bought for the same price)
Cesc Fabregas - 50 (bought for 32...)
Mario Gotze - 55 (bought for some 37)

Again... Draxler, Thiago, and Koke are all worth less than Jack Wilshere.... something that is incredibly weird. Even though Isco plays for Real Madrid, one of the richest clubs in the world, more money is given to Sterling weekly and the transfer fees for Shaw and Lallana both beat his transfer... surprising. Not mentioning Carroll's transfer, because that one was just retarded.

German footballers seem to be fairly priced. The thing is, there's so much promise in the German players, and such consistency in German history that clubs are willing to spend money on the likely next G. Muller, Beckenbauer, Klinsmann, or Matthaus. Spanish football has seen incredible dominance from 2008-12 in the international stage, and everyone wants Spanish players on their team now (not logical, I know, but Spain is probably #1 in terms of talent production in the world right now.... beating both Brazil and Germany). The demand for Spanish players is widely accepted, but the buyout clauses are not. Bargained Spanish prices are still considerable because of the potential fulfilled by the previous generation of Spaniards.

However, the English players have failed to dominate at all in the last decade. Oh yes, you will always have the Lampards, Gerrards, Beckhams, Scholes', Owens, Ferdinands, and Rooneys, but how many English players have actually lived up that standard? These guys are mostly past their time, except for Rooney. Post-2004, how many English superstars have came out to the scene? I can only think of Wayne Rooney as a dominant English player in the world recently (who's come out post-2004), and even he has faded due to certain reasons in recent years. So it seems odd that people would still dish out massive sums to buy and keep English players, when that kind of money is better spent on keeping your Suarez's and your Pogba's.

@lodatz has good points , but I still can't fully agree and disagree with @dynastian .

England has great young talents but where do they go and what happens to them ? That is the question I ask myself.... is it large sums of money and fame offered at such young age ? Good talented 18 years old from Championships on average make 6 to 14 thousand pounds a week . A lot of players in La Liga first devision would have been happy with that pay . So , is it lack of motivation to improve , feeling accomplished and successful at such a young age ? I think yes .

I think EPL being rich and sucessfull is the reason why England lacks talented international players. USA did better than England , this is something to think about . We mock Americans for calling football - "Soccer" , but they did much better at World Cup with literally very little known players than England . Shame .

Maybe it Is also too much pressure and expectations from media and fans ? I think we can include that or maybe our academies are not good enough . However, We have all sorts of managers and coaches from different background from around the Europe and with their systems to educated youngsters but yet England still failing to replace our fading away " golden age " players ( Gerrard , Lampard and co ) .

What to do ?

In my opinion , EPL needs wage cap like in USA especially on young players . And English players would have benefitted greatly by going to another league .

@lodatz has good points , but I still can't fully agree and disagree with @dynastian .

England has great young talents, but where do they go and what happens to them ? That is the question I ask myself.... is it large sums of money and fame offered at such young age ? Good talented 18 year old from Championship on average makes 6 to 14 thousand pounds a week . A lot of players in La Liga First devision would have been happy with that pay . So , is it lack of motivation to improve , feeling accomplished and successful at such a young age ? Spoiled and lack of training , dedication professionalism that is being destroyed by lavish lifestyle at young age ? I think yes .

I think EPL being rich and successful is the reason, why England lacks talented international players. USA did better than England , this is something to think about . We mock Americans for calling football - "Soccer" , but they did much better at World Cup with literally very little known players than England . Shame .

Maybe it Is also too much pressure and expectations from media and fans ? I think we can include that or maybe our academies are not good enough . However, We have all sorts of managers and coaches from different background from around the Europe and with their systems to educated youngsters but yet England still failing to replace our fading away " golden age " players ( Gerrard , Lampard and co ) .

What to do ?

In my opinion , EPL needs wage cap like in USA especially on young players . And English players would have benefitted greatly by going to another league .

@dynastian

" Sterling is paid a massive wage of around 150,000 Pounds per week, while Isco lives off around 70-80,000 Euros a week."

Well , I can count two more clubs that can afford Isco in La Liga with his wages , in EPL there are 7 of them at least . Sterling gets paid a lot because he has a choice if he does not get paid enough . Isco , leaving big club like Real and probably not getting paid same , is a bit of a risk ...

@Dynast:

"and you know very well why Luka is chosen over Isco. Isco is one for the future, while Modric is already the finished product."

Precisely. So, POTENTIAL is being used as the pricing yardstick, just like with the English players. It's exactly the same thing.

"Richest league, yes, but Madrid is one of the richest clubs. You'd think that Madrid would pay Isco ridiculous amounts, but that's not the case. "

Well that's fine, but you were talking about Thiago, and wondering why young English players are being paid more than him. I just gave you the answers. I don't know why this is a point of contention, since I can't see how it impacts either of our arguments.

"Sterling is paid a massive wage of around 150,000 Pounds per week, while Isco lives off around 70-80,000 Euros a week. Talent-wise, Isco > Sterling."

Well, that's debatable, of course, and reveals your biases, but let's say you're right. Even them, Madrid's decision to not pay Isco very much bears no relation to the very competitive wage balance in the PL. Maybe it's because young Spanish stars have nowhere other than Barca and Real to go to in order to earn big bucks, and Real know that, so they simply under-pay?

Either way, it's not evidence of irrational English bias.

"Again... Draxler, Thiago, and Koke are all worth less than Jack Wilshere.... something that is incredibly weird."

Not... really, if you understand how that site works. It's not reporting actual transfer values, it's reporting based upon their own estimations and formulae. For example, Julian DRaxler is NOT available to buy at 30m euros. If he were, that'd be only HALF the price that Arsenal were told to stump up for his signature, only last season.

In short: your source is unreliable, and the 'value' they assign to these players is entirely arbitrary, not reflective of the reality of the transfer market. This is not the fault of English media, or English hype, but if you're looking for a reason why Wilhire might be more expensive than Draxler, it's because Wilshire has played for a number of years now for a club who are rated a fair bit higher (and rightly so) than Schalke.

That's how this works.

"more money is given to Sterling weekly and the transfer fees for Shaw and Lallana both beat his transfer... surprising."

Only to you. Maybe the fact that he was playing for a Malaga side that got banned from UEFA competition had something to do with it, or maybe the fact that Madrid knew they could get away with under-paying him, too. Who knows? But one thing is for certain: Real Madrid have over-paid for players to an ENORMOUS degree more than Liverpool have, and yet I suspect you'd consider every one of these instances to be justified.

It's all bias, sir. Including yours.

"The demand for Spanish players is widely accepted, but the buyout clauses are not"

Because many of those buyout clauses are RIDICULOUS. Seriously, 60m for Koke? That's Pounds, btw, not euros. Alberto Moreno for upwards of 25m (again, in pounds)? All those buyout clauses represent are what the club figures those players will be worth to them, for the length of their contract. This is the exact same thing with English clubs, except for the fact that no-one sits there and works out a value in advance.

Do you not believe that Lallana was worth 25m to Southampton, over the next 3 years left on his contract? That's all that's being discussed, here. You have to appreciate that these are prices for PL players, not prices for being English.

"Oh yes, you will always have the Lampards, Gerrards, Beckhams, Scholes', Owens, Ferdinands, and Rooneys, but how many English players have actually lived up that standard? "

Well, the guys you just listed, for starters. ;) Also, the biggest factor is how these other players play AGAINST all those great players. Notice how the great Spanish generation was almost confined to Barcelona. Aside from Ramos and Alonso, Spain's dominance has been Barcelona + Friends.

By contrast, England have been a mix of the Top 6. There's comparison, except to one another, because of the competitiveness of their league. That's where their pricing comes from.

There really is no mass-delusion which makes English clubs over-rate English players. What they are rating are PREMIERE LEAGUE players, and ENglish players are nearly always PL players to begin with. Again, what about Benteke costing 30m? What about Luiz going for 50m? What about Draxler being 40m? What about Koke being 60m?

It's ALL bias. It's ALL over-pricing, and only someone who is biased against England would fail to see this.

@Dynast:

"and you know very well why Luka is chosen over Isco. Isco is one for the future, while Modric is already the finished product."

Precisely. So, POTENTIAL is being used as the pricing yardstick, just like with the English players. It's exactly the same thing.

"Richest league, yes, but Madrid is one of the richest clubs. You'd think that Madrid would pay Isco ridiculous amounts, but that's not the case. "

Well that's fine, but you were talking about Thiago, and wondering why young English players are being paid more than him. I just gave you the answers. I don't know why this is a point of contention, since I can't see how it impacts either of our arguments.

"Sterling is paid a massive wage of around 150,000 Pounds per week, while Isco lives off around 70-80,000 Euros a week. Talent-wise, Isco > Sterling."

Well, that's debatable, of course, and reveals your biases, but let's say you're right. Even them, Madrid's decision to not pay Isco very much bears no relation to the very competitive wage balance in the PL. Maybe it's because young Spanish stars have nowhere other than Barca and Real to go to in order to earn big bucks, and Real know that, so they simply under-pay?

Either way, it's not evidence of irrational English bias.

"Again... Draxler, Thiago, and Koke are all worth less than Jack Wilshere.... something that is incredibly weird."

Not... really, if you understand how that site works. It's not reporting actual transfer values, it's reporting based upon their own estimations and formulae. For example, Julian DRaxler is NOT available to buy at 30m euros. If he were, that'd be only HALF the price that Arsenal were told to stump up for his signature, only last season.

In short: your source is unreliable (for what you want to use its information for), and the 'value' they assign to these players is entirely arbitrary, not reflective of the reality of the transfer market. This is not the fault of English media, or English hype, but if you're looking for a reason why Wilhire might be more expensive than Draxler, it's because Wilshire has played for a number of years now for a club who are rated a fair bit higher (and rightly so) than Schalke.

That's how this works.

"more money is given to Sterling weekly and the transfer fees for Shaw and Lallana both beat his transfer... surprising."

Only to you. Maybe the fact that he was playing for a Malaga side that got banned from UEFA competition had something to do with it, or maybe the fact that Madrid knew they could get away with under-paying him, too. Who knows? But one thing is for certain: Real Madrid have over-paid for players to an ENORMOUS degree more than Liverpool have, and yet I suspect you'd consider every one of these instances to be justified.

It's all bias, sir. Including yours.

"The demand for Spanish players is widely accepted, but the buyout clauses are not"

Because many of those buyout clauses are RIDICULOUS. Seriously, 60m for Koke? That's Pounds, btw, not euros. Alberto Moreno for upwards of 25m (again, in pounds)? All those buyout clauses represent are what the club figures those players will be worth to them, for the length of their contract. This is the exact same thing with English clubs, except for the fact that no-one sits there and works out a value in advance.

Do you not believe that Lallana was worth 25m to Southampton, over the next 3 years left on his contract? That's all that's being discussed, here. You have to appreciate that these are prices for PL players, not prices for being English.

"Oh yes, you will always have the Lampards, Gerrards, Beckhams, Scholes', Owens, Ferdinands, and Rooneys, but how many English players have actually lived up that standard? "

Well, the guys you just listed, for starters. ;) Also, the biggest factor is how these other players play AGAINST all those great players. Notice how the great Spanish generation was almost confined to Barcelona. Aside from Ramos and Alonso, Spain's dominance has been Barcelona + Friends.

By contrast, England have been a mix of the Top 6. There's comparison, except to one another, because of the competitiveness of their league. That's where their pricing comes from.

There really is no mass-delusion which makes English clubs over-rate English players. What they are rating are PREMIERE LEAGUE players, and ENglish players are nearly always PL players to begin with. Again, what about Benteke costing 30m? What about Luiz going for 50m? What about Draxler being 40m? What about Koke being 60m?

It's ALL bias. It's ALL over-pricing, and only someone who is biased against England would fail to see this.

@Dynast:

"and you know very well why Luka is chosen over Isco. Isco is one for the future, while Modric is already the finished product."

Precisely. So, POTENTIAL is being used as the pricing yardstick, just like with the English players. It's exactly the same thing.

"Richest league, yes, but Madrid is one of the richest clubs. You'd think that Madrid would pay Isco ridiculous amounts, but that's not the case. "

Well that's fine, but you were talking about Thiago, and wondering why young English players are being paid more than him. I just gave you the answers. I don't know why this is a point of contention, since I can't see how it impacts either of our arguments.

"Sterling is paid a massive wage of around 150,000 Pounds per week, while Isco lives off around 70-80,000 Euros a week. Talent-wise, Isco > Sterling."

Well, that's debatable, of course, and reveals your biases, but let's say you're right. Even them, Madrid's decision to not pay Isco very much bears no relation to the very competitive wage balance in the PL. Maybe it's because young Spanish stars have nowhere other than Barca and Real to go to in order to earn big bucks, and Real know that, so they simply under-pay?

Either way, it's not evidence of irrational English bias.

"Again... Draxler, Thiago, and Koke are all worth less than Jack Wilshere.... something that is incredibly weird."

Not... really, if you understand how that site works. It's not reporting actual transfer values, it's reporting based upon their own estimations and formulae. For example, Julian DRaxler is NOT available to buy at 30m euros. If he were, that'd be only HALF the price that Arsenal were told to stump up for his signature, only last season.

In short: your source is unreliable (for what you want to use its information for), and the 'value' they assign to these players is entirely arbitrary, not reflective of the reality of the transfer market. This is not the fault of English media, or English hype, but if you're looking for a reason why Wilhire might be more expensive than Draxler, it's because Wilshire has played for a number of years now for a club who are rated a fair bit higher (and rightly so) than Schalke.

That's how this works.

"more money is given to Sterling weekly and the transfer fees for Shaw and Lallana both beat his transfer... surprising."

Only to you. Maybe the fact that he was playing for a Malaga side that got banned from UEFA competition had something to do with it, or maybe the fact that Madrid knew they could get away with under-paying him, too. Who knows? But one thing is for certain: Real Madrid have over-paid for players to an ENORMOUS degree more than Liverpool have, and yet I suspect you'd consider every one of these instances to be justified.

It's all bias, sir. Including yours.

"The demand for Spanish players is widely accepted, but the buyout clauses are not"

Because many of those buyout clauses are RIDICULOUS. Seriously, 60m for Koke? That's Pounds, btw, not euros. Alberto Moreno for upwards of 25m (again, in pounds)? All those buyout clauses represent are what the club figures those players will be worth to them, for the length of their contract. This is the exact same thing with English clubs, except for the fact that no-one sits there and works out a value in advance.

Do you not believe that Lallana was worth 25m to Southampton, over the next 3 years left on his contract? That's all that's being discussed, here. You have to appreciate that these are prices for PL players, not prices for being English.

"Oh yes, you will always have the Lampards, Gerrards, Beckhams, Scholes', Owens, Ferdinands, and Rooneys, but how many English players have actually lived up that standard? "

Well, the guys you just listed, for starters. ;) Also, the biggest factor is how these other players play AGAINST all those great players. Notice how the great Spanish generation was almost confined to Barcelona. Aside from Ramos and Alonso, Spain's dominance has been Barcelona + Friends.

By contrast, England have been a mix of the Top 6. There's no comparison, except to one another, because of the competitiveness of their league. That's where their pricing comes from.

There really is no mass delusion which makes English clubs over-rate English players. It's just something thrown around by people who dislike England who who resent the dominance of the PL over the last 10 years. What's being rated is the fact that these are PREMIER LEAGUE players, and English players are nearly always PL players to begin with. Again, what about Benteke costing 30m? What about Luiz going for 50m? What about Draxler being 40m? What about Koke being 60m?

It's ALL bias. It's ALL over-pricing, and only someone who is biased against England would fail to see this.

@Marcus:

" So , is it lack of motivation to improve , feeling accomplished and successful at such a young age ? Spoiled and lack of training , dedication professionalism that is being destroyed by lavish lifestyle at young age ? I think yes [...] I think EPL being rich and successful is the reason, why England lacks talented international players."

I think you are absolutely right, and football has become far too much of a business, especially in England. These young men are being paid millions, whether or not England as a nation performs well, and they look to their clubs for the real pay-off and avenue to success, instead.

Look at the contrast with teams like Costa Rica, the USA (as you said), Colombia, etc. They have players who are HUNGRY, because they know that playing for their country represents the greatest thing most of them will ever strive for. For players in England, they are already on cushy wages, enjoying world-wide exposure and European participation, and so I think that edge (and the quality of being an unknown) is lost.

I don't think you've got a reply to my argument, and are focusing on an assertion at the very end in the hopes that it will change the discussion to one about insults.

You could prove me wrong, of course, but I still see nothing wrong with my statement. :)

(You can just walk away, too, if you like. I won't rub it in, but would expect a little more of that 'credit where it is due' in future, maybe?)

I don't think you've got a reply to my argument, and are focusing on an assertion at the very end in the hopes that it will change the discussion to one about insults.

You could prove me wrong, of course, but I still see nothing wrong with my statement. :)

(You can just walk away, too, if you like. I won't rub it in, but would expect a little more of that 'credit where it is due' in future, maybe?)

I don't think you've got a reply to my argument, and are focusing on an assertion at the very end in the hopes that it will change the discussion to one about insults.

You could prove me wrong, of course, but I still see nothing wrong with my statement. :)

(You can just walk away, too, if you like. I won't rub it in, but would expect a little more of that 'credit where it is due' in future, maybe?)

Edited to add: Also, if you are saying that you and I are as biased as each other, then I think you may have just stumbled upon what my actual point was, which I felt was rather clear from the beginning but with which you apparently took issue. Yay for agreement!