Wikipedia

Talk:Transfer (association football)

(Redirected from Talk:Transfer (football))
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dhalamh in topic Neymar, 7 years later
Learn more about this page

Reference 3 is not working

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

404 not found comes up. Howley.l (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neymar is missing

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Neymar is for some reason removed from the list. Why?

The reason I removed Neymar is because, according to Barcelona, the actual transfer fee paid to Santos was €17m. The rest was money paid to Neymar's parents, as reported by Sky Sports, The Independent, The Guardian, and BBC. I would imagine a lot of the money in big transfers goes to agents/assorted third parties, but there's no way of definitely knowing. The Neymar transfer was unusual in the transparency shown. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

mario gotz e

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

w=hat about mario gotze transfer to bayern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.231.79 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Neymar to FC Barcelona

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New reports and investigations show the Neymar transfer to Barcelona was 86 million euros. Please edit this. http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1699461/neymar-investors-want-cut-barcelona-transfer?cc=5901

More on this:

FC Barcelona admit Neymar transfer was 86,2 million euros (01.24.14)

http://www.cuatro.com/deportes/futbol/barcelona/Barca-reconoce-Neymar-costado-millones_2_1737780187.html

FC Barcelona pays Spanish IRS 13,55 million euros over Naymar deal (02.24.14)

http://www.abc.es/deportes/futbol/20140224/abci-barcelona-pago-hacienda-neymar-201402241454.html http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/sports/barcelona-pays-spanish-tax-authorities-13-5m-over-neymar-deal-which-now-reaches-100m-1.865196

That makes 99,75 million euros so far, please edit accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.49.118 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Neymar transfer fee was 86.2 million euros. The list needs to be changed

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

FC Barcelona President Rosell resigned on 23rd January 2014 because of Neymar case. New president Bartomeu admitted new figures in Neymar´s transfer deal in a press conference on 24th January. The total transfer fee was 86.2 million euros (Without player salary. 130,2 million euros if Neymar´s salary is included)

Two key sentences stand out in the very first source provided; "It also turned out, of course, that he might not have been €57.1m either", and "The total cost, if not the actual transfer fee, was more than €86.2m". I think we should wait to see how this saga pans out before jumping the gun and declaring Neymar #1 based on "might not" and money not necessarily deemed to be a transfer fee. The effort in collating those sources is appreciated, of course, but at this junction in the story, perhaps futile. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

WTF?

edit

11 Scotland Mario Silva[30][31] Scotland Celtic Italy Milan £35.5 €56.5 2006

Please remove! I don't dare to it, I will only screw it up. Edit: That took only seconds! Thanks!

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There doesn't seem to be anything on where transfer fees sit legally. By that I mean whatis written in a contract so that a club can demand compensation for rescinding it? As far as I am aware a player can freely walk away and be a plumbe rif he wanted (or at least he could in the days before bosman). IS a contract so "fixed" that both parties have to agree to rescind it and the only way a club would is if they are financially compensated. The legal abiguity of transfer fees is confusing and it would be nice to get a proper explaination especially is we have them for managers now as well. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.234.96 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Transfer (football)?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this article cover only football. I believe that in cricket, basketball and other sports there are tranfers as well. Perhaps this should be a: Transfer (sport) article.

Many reasons why it should be like this,for example, transfer rules are different between sports and this article only describe things that follow the transfer rules of football. If transfers in some sport is a big thing then it should have it's own article if it's not then the people who are interested in it probably already know how it works and those who are not probably doesn't need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Tölöberg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Beckham deal not a transfer

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

??? As the referenced below stated, Beckham's contract with Real is about to expire. This was a free transfer and does not belong on this page. Or am I missing something? Olinto 00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)OlintoReply

Soccer vs. American sports

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Why is it that soccer players always seem to be transfered for cash while in America, athletes are usually traded for other athletes? Are soccer players ever traded for each other? Mwalcoff 06:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That is a good question... I wish I could answer it. Don't the soccer team owners use the cash to hire players? --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There are no rules against it and it has happened, but it is very rare. Calsicol 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
What you do get more often is part exchange deals, especially in the lower leagues. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is usually part exchange, where a lesser value player is added to the money on offer, but ocassionally a straight swap has taken place.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Transfer records

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would be good to have a historic list of transfer records in here. I think the percentage that goes to the player varies, although it is usually nothing if the player puts in a written transfer request. It would be difficult to find out as it would be tied up with the players agent, which most clubs dont list Lazmac 13:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd go further and say that a seperate article on record transfer fees should probably exist. I'll start doing some research.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Others missing?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to your source, Football Database, 30 million pounds were paid to St Germain by Barcelona for Ronaldinho. The calls around 30 million are quite close. What are the differences introduced using €? Should more players be introduced in the list?

shevchenko was 30 million, veron needs to be taken out, the others moved down, so shevchenko goes into the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.155.251 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

URGENT: NOBODY ADD KAKA

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Kaka did not yet transfer to Real Madrid, it is still speculation and there is no OFFICIAL WORD FROM EITHER CLUB. Until there is, WIkipedia must assume that there is no transfer - we are an encyclopedia not a sports magazine. Contact me if any concerns Bulkroosh (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the transfer is now official. My concern is about the rankings. If we consider the fee in Euros, then Kaka is placed at second spot behind Zidane. If we consider the fee in GBP, then Kaka's transfer is the costliest. However, consider that the Euro as a currency has been steady over the years whereas the pound has weakened. So, it makes sense to establish sort the list with respect to Euros rather than pounds. 59.162.23.221 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the article back to pounds for two reason. Firstly the World football transfer record article orders moves by pounds and for consistency it is necessary to keep all related articles in the same currency. Secondly the Euro remains a relatively new currency and so there are no accurate euro values for transfers pre-1999. This conflicts with my above point that consistency is needed throughout transfer record related articles --Daviessimo (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the use of pounds makes sense at all. If we look at the five highest transfers on the list, and 9 of the fifteen listed, all were conducted fully in Euro, pounds don't come into. Clearly, in these transfers, the player's value was decided based on the Euro valuation, and using the Euro here more accurately reflects the substance of the transaction.

(P.S) I'm aware that the Euro only came into circulation in 2002, but the exchange rates between Eurozone countries was fixed in 1999, meaning that the Euro is accurate as it remained stable in relation to the currencies of the clubs involved.Bh02306069 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure also that the Euro has some sort of official standing within UEFA meaning that European transfers have to be denominated in Euro. 86.177.171.90 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article has become ridiculous. It should just be listed in Euros, and then to the right of it in GBP. When it becomes too complex the way it has it turns off anyone who is looking for simple data, which is what people rush to Wikipedia for.

What about the players' role?

edit

This article is missing something crucial ... what if a club wants to sell a player but he doesn't want to go? Does the player have a say? What if there are offers from clubs A and B, the club wants to sell to club A, but the player wants to go to club B? What happens then?

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Ibrahimovic inflated transfer value does not look correct compared to the value paid, given it was only a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.148.105 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Zlatan should only be €45M, etoo was included in the deal and although he had a value (not confirmed by a reliable source), this is transfer fees received and etoo's value should not be included!!! CHANGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.157.250 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe Zlatan's fee was around 45 million euro. Should the fee for Eto'o be added to the transfer value?


Silental (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply


According to the Spanish press, and quoting an FC Barcelona executive, Ibrahimovic tranfer to Barcelona was valued at €66 million by the parts, while that of Eto'o to Inter was valued at €20 million. In fact, although obviously linked, these are two legally independent operations. http://www.marca.com/2009/07/27/futbol/equipos/barcelona/1248702093.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.84.125 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it was one legal operation. The Zlatan presentation was held off until Eto'o signed the papers in Milan. Both players completed their medicals and signed contracts concurrently. Inter would not have accepted the deal if it was €45 million only. I'll leave it for others to research and site sources as I expect this will be a controversial change on this page, putting Zlatan above Kaka with €66 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.238.163 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hernán Crespo to Lazio, is fee plus Matias Almeyda and Sérgio Conceição. Vieri to Inter is fee plus Diego Simeone. Unpaid debt Gaizka Mendieta became Stefano Fiore and Bernardo Corradi. Matthew_hk tc 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem with part-exchange deals is the lack of an official fee for the player swapped. I could be wrong, but as I understand it the fee for Eto'o is just a media estimate of his valuation rather than an actual agreement between the clubs. I don't know how the info can be included in the table except as it is now. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Barcelona have stated the part exchange was €20, so where does the value in the table come from? --86.136.71.39 (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Do you have the link to Barca's statement? If you have then this can be resolved. If not I don't think it should be added to Ibrahimovic's value because it's just an estimate without official source.RavenMaster7 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mourinho think Eto'o worth €50M, FC Barcelona said he worth €20M. Kaká, Shevchenko Ronaldo fee is media estimate. The section itself have problem. Matthew_hk tc 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eto'o should def. be included in the valuation of Ibrahimovic. Obviously Eto'o was and is worth more than 20 million euro, somewhere between 30 and 50 I would say. Footnote number 5 - I can't even find the 5 in the article or in the table, where is it? Also I propose you put a sentence in the part right above the table, to make it clear. This should not be a discussion between Ibrahimovic lover and haters, but the article is incorrect in this state, as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.56.60 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Juventus year book 2002-03 said Buffon discount value at June 2003 is €52.265M, Nedvěd is €47.778M, the fee is the table is wrong. Matthew_hk tc 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mario Gomez

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What about German striker Mario Gomez? FC Bayern Munich paid about 35 million euros (about 30 million pounds) for him this summer[1]. As the table is listed in GBP Gomez should be placed 13th. Etmot (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Listing Records in € and not £

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why are the record listed in £ and not the more logical €? Why is the € more logical? Because 8 out of the 10 transfers have happened between countries in the Eurozone, and in one of the final two (Ronaldo) the deal was negotiated in €. By listing it in £, one obtains a misleading picture, because of the plummeting exchange rate of sterling makes newer transfers appear higher. I suggest we re-arrange the list by value in €. Mecil (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Carlos Tevez

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's conflicting evidence to what his transfer fee is, see http://www.footballtransfers.co.uk/profile/carlos-tevez/7556/, or the ref at Tevez. I suggest we delete him until conclusive evidence is found. Sandman888 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tevez fee needs to be confirmed and adjusted accordingly. Right no he is probably 15 places higher than he should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.163.245 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion

edit

Please make this a template, and insert it in all the related articles, Thanks!

Transfer Series
in Association football

Transfer
Transfer market
Transfer records
Transfer window
Free transfer
Loan

edit

Solidarity Contribution

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why the whole section deleted and without any hints in this talk page?! Matthew_hk tc 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Gunnarsson transfer — seperate article or redirect

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be a seperate article about the Gunnarsson transfer ?

Or a redirect?--85.166.141.237 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This case meet the notability guidelines (WP:GNG), and could be an own article. Be WP:BOLD and start it, and more editors with more sources will edit the article. The worst thing that could happen is that it's merged into Stabæk Fotball. Cheers. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you start the article, then I expect to contribute. More info on your talk page.
(A such article would probably not be merged to Stabæk; the leaders of 2 teams made a one-million kroner deal for a five-million kroner player. I would not rule out sanctions against one or more of Vålerenga's leaders.)--85.166.141.237 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I suggest a redirect for now, to Consequences of the Stabæk-Vålerenga transfer of Veigar Pall Gunnarsson. I have been inspired by the thoughts of User:Comte0 at wp:France.
(A registered user, rather than I, would have to perform such a redirect, possibly to Veigar_Páll_Gunnarsson#Consequences_of_the_Stab.C3.A6k-V.C3.A5lerenga_transfer . Suggestion for name of redirect: Veigar_Páll_Gunnarsson 2011 football transfer)--85.166.141.237 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit

Are there any notable links in English?--85.166.141.237 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The need for a seperate article; naming

edit

There is a need for a seperate article. Most of what the media has written so far, shows no participation of the football player himself. So why should sanctions against various other people and clubs, be mentioned in the article about the player?

The name probably ought to be Veigar_Páll_Gunnarsson transfer 2011. (He has been transferred several times in the last 10 years, and many of those have arguably been notable.

The most notable draft that I have seen for such an article, is Gunnarsson transfer — using text from 3 authors.--85.166.141.237 (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

January 2012 Edits

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
  • I have made some edits to the table that I'd like to discuss. The table is for the "Top 15 transfer fees paid"... So my perspective is that if there are another 3 players transferred for £40m (adjusted for inflation) this window, but it will still only be the 10th highest transfer fee paid, thus making the next highest the 11th highest fee paid, and so on. It's not like a race where if there is a dead heat for second, then the next person over the line is fourth. I hope this is making sence... I think it is good having it this way as it shows 15 unique values that make the "top 15 transfer fees paid", which to my understanding is the idea of the table.
  • I added in Rio Ferdinand and Juan Sebastián Verón as their fee adjusted for inflation is £35m - I read the talk page and but I'm still not entirely sure why they were removed.
For Ronaldo, the fee published in Ronaldo#2002–2006: Real Madrid is €46m (also unsourced), yet the fee here is £46m/€58m - transfermarkt.co.uk quotes £39.6m.
For Shevchenko, I've only ever seen £30.8m quoted as the fee, which is in line with the sourced fee on Andriy Shevchenko#Chelsea, however transfermarkt.co.uk claims £40.48m.

Any constructive input would be appreciated - I'd also appreciate not flat out deleting my work without first having a chat about it. I've got no problems if people want to edit it though as I took an educated guess at Robinho and Dimitar Berbatov being #14 and #15 respectively. Cheers :) - Ck786 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Righto. A week has passed with no objections to the above. I have done my own research on Ronaldo and Andriy Shevchenko's transfers. Italian media outlet reported the Ronaldo transfer as €45m - with €35m paid up front and another €10m payable in December 2002 if Inter didn't select a Madrid player to be included in the deal. This see's Ronaldo drop to 9th on the list. As for Shevchenko, I just used the sourced figure from his article, which references an A.C. Milan financial report. Thus Shevchenko drops to 14th on the adjusted list. Berbatov drops off, because Shevchenko's fee is no longer the same as Christian Vieri's (or anyone else for that matter). So the table is complete with 15 unique record transfer fees as of this edit. Ck786 (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
One final change - had to re-add in Berbatov as I missed that both Rui Costa and Javier Pastore are on £37m (adjusted), thus for there to be 15 unique transfer fees, Berbatov needed to go in at #15 with Costa and Pastore on equal 11th and the troupe on £35m, all equal 12th. Ck786 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nedved vs Buffon

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nedved costed Juve 41 million euros (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1064964.html), but he doesn't make the list, while Buffon (23 million pounds, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1422132.stm) does? Something isn't right here. Azzurro2882 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Inbrahimovic

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

None of the sources claim Ibrahimovic's transfer was 66 million euros. They claim it was 46 million + Eto'o who was valued at 20 million. Its a matter of fact that his transfer fee wasn't 66 million. It was 46 million. This is a FACT. Why on earth is Ibrahimovic the only trade in the history of football where the estimated value of who he was traded with is added. It's just an estimate and this applies to literally no other trade. I therefore request a change in the table because it is absolute categorical FACT that the transfer fee was NOT 66 milluion euros. Why does everyone always, always make this mistake ONLY for Ibrahimovic. Stumink (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Andy Cole's transfer figure was always reported as £7million, which was actually £6million + £1million rated Keith Gillespie. Inter valued Eto'o at £20 million, and therefore accepted him as part of the transfer fee. 82.163.59.11 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mendieta

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He went to Lazio for 48million at the time, he surely makes the list?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.185.200 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fernandinho

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On 6 June 2013, Fernandinho became Manchester City's first signing of the summer, for a fee of £30 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.118.129 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cristiano Ronaldo should still be ranked #1 and not Gareth Bale

Previous ranking on world's most expensive transfer attributed to Gareth Bale was attributed based on speculative values. Such speculation has been put to an end by the president of Real Madrid on public interview, widely reported by the media

Gareth Bale's Transfer Fee Revealed by Real Madrid President

I would like to see previous editor to correct the relevant information concerning this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrts (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply


Gareth Bale should be #1

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Why isn't Gareth Bale ranked 1st in the article? According to sources, his transfer is the most expensive costing £85m (100m euros) [2]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's funny how the vandal missed off removing the references pointing out that it was in fact £85.3 million (100m euros), Ronaldo fan boy I presume. I'd suggest semi-locking the page along with the record progression one also. 109.170.144.231 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
According to other sources it was just 91m euros. There is NO OFFICAL STATEMENT which can prove that Bale cost 100m euros while there is an OFFICAL SOURCE (here) for the 94m euros of Ronaldo. Is Wikipedia built on rumours or does it work with official sources? Seriously, how can you declare someone the world record transfer without statements from the clubs? It's hilarious. -- Tkotw12 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.11.176.43 (talk) Reply
I included 6 sources from well respected media outlets, and all cite an extremely similar fee.RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
First of all, the Daily Mail surely is anything but a well respected media outlet. That makes it five. The you have The Independent, which clearly states: While Tottenham said they had been paid €100m for Bale sources in Spain described the fee as €90m. That makes it four. Then you have The Guardian, which, in another article also states: While the talk is of Bale signing for €100m, the figure released by Madrid is €91m. That makes it three. And then, of course, you only cite British media outlets but totally forget about the existence of Spanish ones. How about the always well informed Madrid-based sports newspapers Diario AS (here) and Marca (here) or the highly respected El Mundo (here) among others. They all talk about 91m euros. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Bale cost 91m euros, I'm just trying to tell you that there is no actual proof that his fee was 100m euros. And Wikipedia should not use rumours of numbers and state them as facts. So it should say that according to media reports Bale cost between 91 and 100m euros which could be the world record transfer. It's as easy as that. -- Tkotw12 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.11.176.43 (talk) Reply
You asked for a club statement, and then you copy & paste this - "Tottenham said they had been paid €100m for Bale". Why ignore that? It's not official but it's exactly what Real Madrid have done with their reports in AS and Marca.
You say Daily Mail shouldn't be trusted (that's a whole other argument, especially considering Neil Ashton wrote the piece) but 2 of the 3 sources you listed were Marca and AS, and as Spanish football expert Sid Lowe discusses in this article, they are horrifically pro-Real Madrid, so if a Madrid source lies to them about the fee, they'll report it anyway. The El Mundo link says the source of the €91m is Chamartin, a region in Madrid, so basically the source is Real Madrid. Yet they later mention the €100m fee which is sourced to the BBC.
A more recent Marca article and a more recent AS article both mention the fee of €100m alongside the fee of €91m.
I don't know what the offical Wiki policy is, but seeing as this is the English language version of Wikipedia, English sources should be presumably be favoured unless the only sources available are foreign language. I used 6 sources, intentionally more than every other player on the list, purely as this has proved to be a contentious issue and should be a sufficient number of sources to avoid this debate. If those 6 major English language stories reveal the fee is actually lower, the ranking will be amended accordingly. Similarly with the Tevez ranking, I used a large number of sources to counter any possible doubts that would be had. If there's an issue with the lack of official figure released by Tottenham, most of the players on the list will have to be removed as big transfers are generally described as "undisclosed" or something similar. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The source of the 91m euros is Real Madrid. Alright. And that's what you criticize? They were part of the deal. They should know, right? What's the source of the 100m euros? Tottenham, of course. Now, both clubs have a reason to tell a lie. Real Madrid to keep the Portuguese happy and Tottenham to justify the sale of its star player with a new world record fee. So basically it's the word of Real Madrid against the word of Tottenham. And there are plenty of newspaper articles you could cite for both sums. Even most of your British sources also mention the 91m euros. So there is no proof for the actual amount! And it's just not right to just cite the 100m sources and leave out the other ones. It's like you are saying "It's 100m euros. Forget about the 91m euros. That's rubbish" without any proof for the actual amount. If most of the other players on the list also are listed with unofficial sources than this should be mentioned as well. Otherwise it's just bad encyclopedic work. But at least regarding the other players it doesn't exist any conflicting information. I guess that's the big difference -- Tkotw12 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.11.176.43 (talk) Reply
Edit: Goal.com: Perez claims bale cost 91m -- Tkotw12 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think that we should add 91m euros as the offical transfer fee as Perez (Real Madrid president) is the first to official reveal the price. I think one official claim from a club is a better source then media reports. As I know, Tottenham has never officialy stated the price to the media, and if they dont respond soon, we should make the 91m euros as the transfer fee. -- SideMaster (talk) 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Surely we should wait until Tottenham and/or Real release their financial documents until settling upon the decision, rather than using arbitrary deadlines or relying on Goal.com and Marca? Tottenham release their financial report in mid-to-late January.RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, we finally have the first official statement from one of the club's officials. And it is not anyone but Florentino Pérez, the Real Madrid president. We are not relying on Goal.com or Marca but on an interview he gave on national television. Therefore we surely can wait for the financial statements - although as an accountant I'm sure it will be quite difficult to find any useful and clear information in there - but as it is the only official source up to now we should at least rely more on this one than on the newspaper articles. ESPN.co.uk: Ronaldo cost more than Bale - Perez -- Tkotw12 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Edit: And the sources keep coming. What do you think? Can we rely on FIFA? fifa.com: Bale set for Real return after training -- Tkotw12 (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Can I ask, did you actually read those articles? Because at no point does Florentino Perez say Bale cost £78m. The articles have blatantly misquoted Perez. That's tabloid stuff. And really, you ask if we can rely on FIFA? Of course we can't! If you want an actual quote from somebody involved, read this link which contains actual quotes from Gareth Bale's actual agent. Not misquotes, nor quotes from somebody with an agenda to appease fans that he didn't break the transfer record despite his club being in mountains of debt.RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Of course you can ask, my friend! I read those articles. I even watched the television interview. I see nothing wrong with those quotes. They present the truth. He was asked if Bale was insured for the amount of his transfer fee of 91m euros. And Florentino said that's right. Where's the misquote? By the way, you talk about mountains of debt like that's a bad thing, but you don't seem to understand that debt can be very healthy. In fact, every big corporation on earth has debts, billions of debts. Still they are very healthy, as is Real Madrid. But that's another topic. The quotes of his agent are fine but they don't matter as he doesn't belong to one of the clubs and has an even bigger interest to make him the record man than Florentino has to appease fans. -- Tkotw12 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here's the response of Perez: "Yes, sure. It's a life insurance, against accidents. Bale is insured for the amount he cost". Perez did not say "Bale is insured for €91m". These sources are futile.RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
But you realize that he gave his answer based on a question, right? And the question basically was if Bale was insured for €91m. In this context the answer "Yes, sure. Bale is insured for the amount he cost" is anything but futile as foundation for sources. But, of course, you are right: He didn't explicitly state "Bale is insured for €91m". -- Tkotw12 (talk) 7:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
But you realise that he gave his answer based on a loaded question, right?RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Are we now discussing the type of question he answered? This is great! The guy has to answer questions like this every day. He knows how to handle loaded questions. What he said is what he said. Why do you keep deleting the new Agence France-Presse source. It's one of the most respected Western news agencies. You can't ask for a better source than that. -- Tkotw12 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you know what a loaded question is, you'll know why such a source is totally ridiculous. It doesn't matter if AFP is "resepected", loaded questions hold no merit. Unless a source has NEW information which isn't wrapped in a loaded question (i.e. Bale's agent saying the transfer is a record), there's really no need to add it. It isn't necessary to have a dozen links which all say the same thing months after the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
You are right. -- Tkotw12 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody explain to me why it is now stated as official again that the Bale transfer broke the world record fee (even with a picture at the beginning of the article!)? What happened? -- Tkotw12 (talk) 9:58, 23 January 2014 (CEST)

  • It isn't saying that (unless someone altered the caption). Because of the conflicting information in reliable sources, both Ronaldo and Bale are listed as being either the most expensive player ever, or the second most. Hence the "1-2" in the table. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Did you read the text right below the picture of Bale at the beginning of the article? It says: Gareth Bale is the most expensive player in the history of association football. And it goes on saying: Cristiano Ronaldo previously held the honour. How does this reflect the conflicting information in reliable sources? I totally agree with the "1-2"-listing in the table. But the text below the pictures has to be changed as well as the sentence in the Highest fees category which presents a fact rather than the conflicting information (...contains six transfers which broke the world transfer record: those of Gareth Bale...). -- Tkotw12 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (CEST)

Playing position

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should there be a list for Highest transfer fee position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This list is wrong. Barcelona's president has said that Neymar cost 86 million euros, not 57 as incorrectly reported on this list. You can see more in Spain's best-selling general information newspaper: http://deportes.elpais.com/deportes/2014/01/24/actualidad/1390579318_254979.html Barcelona's best-selling newspaper carries the same story: http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/barca/barca-desnuda-operacion-neymar-304088 Would it be possible to correct this mistake now that even Barcelona's president is acknowledging that Neymar cost 86 million euro? (and perhaps more, as published by Spanish media this week)

77.102.226.171 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply


Real Madrid paid €91,000,000 for Gareth Bale

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Según informó Sportnomics, la transacción de 77 millones de libras (91 millones de euros) fue registrada en la Hacienda Británica (HMTreasure) el pasado 3 de septiembre, lo que confirmaría la versión del Real Madrid.

Source: http://futbolfinanzas.com/es-bale-el-fichaje-mas-caro-de-la-historia/

Transfer Markt: http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/gareth-bale/transfers/spieler_39381_942395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.64.251 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Luis Suarez should be at the top of the table

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Suarez transfer fee to Barcelona is 75m pound which is a little more than 94m euro .. Gareth Bale was sold for 91m euro and Ronaldo was sold for 80m pound which was a little less than 94m euro at the time .. Suarez transfer broke the record.--AhMeD BoSS (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Suarez is less expensive than Ronaldo in terms of pounds but equal to him in terms of euros. I think it's best to leave it the way it is until we get more info on Suarez's price and Bale's price. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Spanish press quotes a transfer price of €81 million (there is consensus on that figure on the four nation-wide sports newspapers), which matches the £64.3 million suggested by Sky Sports in its latest update (see first paragraph)... http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11669/9379054/transfer-news-barcelona-have-agreed-a-fee-with-liverpool-for-luis-suarez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trantor2312 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The following two links also state the region of 80 million euros. Yet the sources used in this article are of English sites right as the transfer happened. ESPFC.com Marca.com Can this be updated to show the correct figure of 81 million euros? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
The BBC, Times, and Liverpool Echo report 75 million pounds. Much more reputable than awful sources like Marca and ESPNFC. So no. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pato from São Paulo to AC Milan

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It should be mentioned somewhere that Pato's transfer from São Paulo FC to AC Milan had been the most expansive transfer of a player under Age of majority. --Snaporaxx (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a reliable source/sources that details teenage transfers, go ahead and make the edit. Although as it stands, both Luke Shaw and Wayne Rooney are the top 2 in such a list. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tevez

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Tevez fee is unsupported by any of the sources provided and has been discredited by the club and media sports investments as well as Tevez's advisors,

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/anger-over-tevez-47m-fee-929735

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1212941/Carlos-Tevezs-advisors-insist-Manchester-City-did-break-British-record-striker.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.177.218 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Luke Shaw

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Luke Shaw should make the list, since his transfer was 30-33 million pounds (i didnt find a 100% reliable info on that) so it would break the teenager record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolini (talk • contribs) 07:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

where is Neymar 176.27.121.124 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)SHAYReply

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Photos

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All these photos are really necessary? --129.102.254.253 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

How about the Champions League?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this article it's said nothing about the following: I know that if a player has been signed mid-season and he's played in the Champions League for his old club, he can't play for his new in the tournament until the end of the season. I don't know since when is it so. Also I see no answer if a player has played for his old team in the Europa League if he can play for his new tam in the Champions league, which is the question that troubles me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.183.69 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transfer (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merge from Globalization of the football transfer market

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That article, created as an educational student assignment, is essentially a fork of the history, with a few instances of the word globalization thrown in. There is no need for this to exist as a separate article. Sure, transfers are affected by globalization - so is everything else, pretty much, and the article doesn't make a good case that globalization of transfers is a notable topic in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Redirected to the history section, rather than merging, given the above arguments. Klbrain (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Resolved

Merger proposal September 2019

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge as proposed (distinct topics) and no consensus for any other action discussed, with discussion stale for a year. Klbrain (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I propose to merge Loan (sports) into Transfer (association football)#Loan. I think that the content in the Loan (sports) article can easily be explained in the context of Transfers generally, and the Transfer (association football) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the Loan (sports) article will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Loans are generally seen as a type of transfer, and are indeed already covered on this page. While the Loan (sports) article purports to cover all sports, its content refers exclusively to association football. Domeditrix (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

*:~WP:WikiProject Football~ has been notified to help generate additional attention to the above request(s).Domeditrix (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak Oppose - I'm not sure it particularly helps. Yes, they are of suitable lengths that, had they been merged at the start, we shouldn't do a WP:SPLIT, but the article on loans could be expanded. Just because two items are quite well related, it doesn't mean they defacto need to be merged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - if the "loan" main article covered anything other than football I might oppose it, but at present it seems nobody has done so. If at a future point someone wants to deal with "loans" in a wider sporting context, then they can recreate with more comprehensive cover. It is at best a fork. Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose The article Loan (sports) mean loan in professional sport. It can cover loan in basketball and other sport if they have "loan" system. No objection on copying /cutting content to Transfer (association football)#Loan. Just make sure to attribute and tag the articles by templates . Matthew hk (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would say that the main Loan article is at best a stub. It was created in 2006 as "Loan (football)", it was moved to "Loan (association football)" in 2009 by Jimbo online, and then moved without any discussion to "Loan (sports)" by User:Heymid but at no point was the article expanded to cover other sports (and no rationale for what "other sports" perform loans was submitted), or the moves discussed. The only significant change subsequent to 2010 was the changing of the initial wording to "In sports" from "In football", while everything else has been the same since (changing the image seems to have been the biggest move). This seems a very obvious case of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK having been changed incorrectly in the past.
I would salt this article back to a redirect to the different articles that exist for Transfer mechanics. Koncorde (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
No what I have identified is that this shouldn't have been forked without a rationale, and then it shouldn't have had its name change without a rationale, and someone should have thought 10 years ago that if you are going to create a generic loan (sports) stub that they should have looked for the parent article first. At the moment there is not a "Transfer (sport)" to discuss the use of transfers in all those other sports. The fact that this one has existed and has been linked to is basically irrelevant. Supporting this article effectively supports the idea that someone could rename Transfer (association football) on a whim, and then force the football article to include unrelated content because that is what has happened here.
In reality there should be that generic "sports transfer" wiki, within which loans are discussed. This Loan article then becomes a redirect to Transfer (sports) and within that article you have small sections on each sport, with a "see main article" for Association football. Each sport can then have it's own Loan (basketball) that redirects to their own Transfer page.
Any other decision just prolongs the absence of the actual parent article while creating an unnecessary fork of content which will likely become more splintered as time progresses. Koncorde (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you understand what is being proposed. This article would remain, the content would be merged. This articles content would then require fleshing out. Koncorde (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you understand what I meant. I want article Loan (sports) to remain. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't part of the merge debate? Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Additional ISuggestion

edit

For best example of what needs to happen, see: Trade (sports) which needs a partner page Transfer (sports) separated by their concepts. These then need to link direct down to Transfer (association football), Transfer market, Transfer window and similar. I suspect that there is a lot of duplication across the articles and / or cross referencing. Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neymar, 7 years later

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Text of this article says "the transfer had in fact cost them a total of €57.1 million (£48.6M)", but the reference it cites says "Josep Maria Bartomeu, called a news conference to reveal the true cost of signing Neymar was actually £71.5m. I'll investigate a bit more before changing it, but this looks like figures getting muddled. Dhalamh (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transfer_(association_football)&oldid=1198932372"