How much is Luke Young worth then ?

[Dave]

Because Maddison is more prolific at finding the net obviously. Young scored something like 8 goals in 100 appearances for Plymouth. Add to that the 6 from 25 or so games for us.
Maddison scored pretty much that in his last 30 appearances for Gateshead. But then, scouts will look at his all round game as well, and see if he looks like he can make the step up. Clearly he can, judging by his start at Peterboro. Im pretty sure the same can't be said of Young.

On what basis do you think Young can't make the step up. Four seasons equate to 184 league games, Luke Young a very, very young player made 99 appearances, how many of those were from the bench ? How many times did he come of the bench in those 99 appearances and only get 5-10 minutes on the pitch, how many game for game runs in the side did LY get at plymouth, his 99 appearances for Plymouth can not be taken as proof LY isn't capable of making the step up.

And when you talk about Maddison being more prolific than Young, if we're talking about them both as conference players how do you work that out ? Maddison scored 13 goals in 34 games for Gateshead, Luke Young has scored 6 goals in 16 games for Torquay, give or take a bit of spare change that gives them both a strike rate of 38 %, very equal if you ask me.

[Gulliball]

The difference between Grimes and Young is that Premiership sides can afford £1.75m for their targets. Luke Young will likely move to a League One club, and very few of them pay transfer fees above six figures, that's why I would put him in the circa £100k bracket. At 21 he's still at an age where he can improve further and has a sell on potential, so someone might take a chance with him. Luke Young, with the same ability but aged 28, and he'd be worth barely anything in terms of transfer fee.

[Sunnysideup]

And when you talk about Maddison being more prolific than Young, if we're talking about them both as conference players how do you work that out ? Maddison scored 13 goals in 34 games for Gateshead, Luke Young has scored 6 goals in 16 games for Torquay, give or take a bit of spare change that gives them both a strike rate of 38 %, very equal if you ask me.

Feel free to go start an arguement with someone else as I can be bothered after this to be honest. In 2014, Young got 8 goals from 44 games at L2/Conf level. Maddison got 20 from 41 games at Conf/L1 level. In my opinion, Young is not ready to make the step up 2 levels successfully.

[Sunnysideup]

The difference between Grimes and Young is that Premiership sides can afford £1.75m for their targets. Luke Young will likely move to a League One club, and very few of them pay transfer fees above six figures, that's why I would put him in the circa £100k bracket. At 21 he's still at an age where he can improve further and has a sell on potential, so someone might take a chance with him. Luke Young, with the same ability but aged 28, and he'd be worth barely anything in terms of transfer fee.

Mind you GB, someone like Peterboro have form in splashing out on a speculative basis. Ty Barnett anyone? Over a million well spent there

[Dave]

Feel free to go start an arguement with someone else as I can be bothered after this to be honest. In 2014, Young got 8 goals from 44 games at L2/Conf level. Maddison got 20 from 41 games at Conf/L1 level. In my opinion, Young is not ready to make the step up 2 levels successfully.

Was never trying to start an argument with you, not sure why you think I was. It comes down to damn lies and statistics, how many of those 41 games did Maddison play the full 90 minutes compared to Luke Young, you may find a big difference, it's about actual pitch time. If the majority of Luke Young's appearances for Plymouth were off the subs bench, or a start where he didn't complete the match (which I suggest is close to the truth) he would have had much less pitch time and therefore less opportunity to actually score a goal, that's all I'm saying.

I get exactly where Gulliball is coming from, and don't disagree with him or Stef. I'm constantly fed up of our club selling itself short, for a start the best our club could do, agree with others, is 'not' to sell Luke Young that would best for both the player and the club, but, if a club does come knocking in January, then TUFC must man up.

Don't do the, yes, we're a tiny little non-league club, and LY didn't score that many at Plymouth so there, there, there, you can have the player for £70k, no. Put £400k on his head, and if the buying club won't pay it, nothing ventured, nothing lost, as we keep the player.

[stefano]

That's the thing though Stef. Young players around the lower league do have 'deficiencies' Matt Grimes will have some in his game as well, any bigger club buying a young player from League 2 or the conference is buying into the players potential not a player who's the finished article.

You are of course right Dave and I suppose it depends on how much clubs are willing to pay for 'potential', with all the associated risks that go with it. After all Elliot Benyon did look like a natural goalscorer at one time, something every club needs. The 'potential' to go higher though didn't work out and he now seems to have no confidence at all and most of the time struggles at what is probably his natural level.

I actually don't think that Luke Young, as good as he is for us, would be worth any more than £125,000.

I am quite pleased though that my eye for a youngster doesn't seem to be that bad! When Ashley Barnes was playing terribly for us and getting slated on the forums, I posted that I could see his potential and that he would play at least Championship and quite likely Premiership. Nice to see he revels in the top flight and bangs them in from all angles. Future England International? Is he English?!!!

[hector]

There is of course the general valuation and the value TUFC seem to get for players.

If Matt Grimes was at Plainmoor, would we get anywhere near £1.75m for him? More likely, we would get £180,000.

We tend to sell quite cheaply, so expect Young, if he goes, to go for less than £100K with a few 'unlikely to see the light of day' add-ons.

[Bomber]

There is of course the general valuation and the value TUFC seem to get for players.

If Matt Grimes was at Plainmoor, would we get anywhere near £1.75m for him? More likely, we would get £180,000.

We tend to sell quite cheaply, so expect Young, if he goes, to go for less than £100K with a few 'unlikely to see the light of day' add-ons.

But, on that note, we've never had anyone that good for such a long time.

What you have to remember is that Grimes is an England Under-20 international, and, should he break into the Swansea side, he could feature in the Under-21 side.

In real terms, the fee they are receiving for him is the modern equivalent of what we got for Lee Sharpe back in 1988.

[tomogull]

Just going off this topic at a slight tangent and probably adding two and two and not making four, if the proposed transfer of Matt Grimes to Swansea goes ahead as it seems likely to, and the reported £1.75 million is safely in the Grecians bank account, does anyone else think Paul Tisdale might well have Luke Young on his radar as a possible replacement ? I hate to say this but I think Young would fit in well with the style of football City try to play and he would develop as a player (as Grimes has) under Tisdale. Just a horrible thought ........

[Burnhamgull]

That wouldn't surprise me, Tisdale sells Grimes for £1.75m........buys Young for £75k plus all the proceeds from a pre-season friendly......then sells Young for £1m plus add ons........

[hector]

Just going off this topic at a slight tangent and probably adding two and two and not making four, if the proposed transfer of Matt Grimes to Swansea goes ahead as it seems likely to, and the reported £1.75 million is safely in the Grecians bank account, does anyone else think Paul Tisdale might well have Luke Young on his radar as a possible replacement ? I hate to say this but I think Young would fit in well with the style of football City try to play and he would develop as a player (as Grimes has) under Tisdale. Just a horrible thought ........

I suspect the re-signing of Ryan Harley is the replacement for Matt Grimes.

I cannot see Exeter blowing a big chunk of their windfall on Luke Young, because 'IF' £200k is the mooted price, would they ever get that back if they signed him, especially if it was only a transfer embargo that prevented them getting him for free 6 months ago? Exeter's record fee paid is £65,000, 30 years ago for Tony Kellow - I don't think they are the sort of club who would spend that sort of money, that they would need to spend to sign Young.

That £1.75m will no doubt be used to safeguard their long-term future.

[friendlygas]

Luke Young is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for him and what Torquay are prepared to accept. Would be very surprised if it ends up being more than £100,000 because of the fact that he didn't set the world alight in League 2 last season and this season he is in the Conference. Many clubs will look at that and think that he is not good enough for League 2 but too good for the Conference. I actually think that midfield players can perform better in the Championship because they are given more time on the ball rather than the rush and tumble of the Conference and League 2 and possibly League 1 as well. It will be interesting to see if 1) you get any offers in January and 2) whether your Board is strong enough to hold off the paltry offers you could get.
Personally I feel the offer for Grimes ,if true, is absolutely ridiculous but from Swanseas point of view if their Manager sees Grimes as being capable of doing certain tasks in the Premiership then 1.75m is chicken feed to them and the general cost of getting players into the Premiership. You have to hope that somebody at Championship or Premiership level sees Young as good enough to do a job for them and have enough money to make a "stupid" bid for him. It really is that much of a lottery.

[hector]

No, it is not. The modern equivalent of what we got for Lee Sharpe is just over £450,000.

Interestingly, the £65,000, Exeter paid for Tony Kellow in 1980, would be worth around £287,000 now. How on earth did they ever afford that back then?

For some time our record fee paid was the £25,000 we paid for Vince O'Keefe, to Exeter, also in 1980. That would be around £110,000 now. Cannot ever imagine us paying that sort of fee these days. That makes it a bigger fee (in today's terms) than the £75,000 paid for Leon Constantine and the £70,000 paid for Eifion Williams in 1999.

However, the £60,000 paid for Wes Saunders, which would be worth around £130,000 today, is probably our 'biggest' fee paid.

The £600,000 we got from Crewe for Rodney Jack would be around £950,000 today.

These calculations may be somewhat crude but are based on this site http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html

[happytorq]

No, it is not. The modern equivalent of what we got for Lee Sharpe is just over £450,000.

Interestingly, the £65,000, Exeter paid for Tony Kellow in 1980, would be worth around £287,000 now. How on earth did they ever afford that back then?

For some time our record fee paid was the £25,000 we paid for Vince O'Keefe, to Exeter, also in 1980. That would be around £110,000 now. Cannot ever imagine us paying that sort of fee these days. That makes it a bigger fee (in today's terms) than the £75,000 paid for Leon Constantine and the £70,000 paid for Eifion Williams in 1999.

However, the £60,000 paid for Wes Saunders, which would be worth around £130,000 today, is probably our 'biggest' fee paid.

The £600,000 we got from Crewe for Rodney Jack would be around £950,000 today.

These calculations may be somewhat crude but are based on this site http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html

Yes. they are.

You're basing that solely on the rate of inflation, which although a good guide for comparing the price of a loaf of bread from 1973 with now, is probably not an accurate reflection of the 'cost' of Lee Sharpe back then. Sharpe was sold prior to the huge Sky led windfalls that Premiership clubs have seen since the late nineties, so taken as a proportion of income, I'd guess that Sharpe was a lot more expensive - as a percentage of Manchester United's turnover - than that. As an example, let's say that back then MU's turnover was £20m (id guess it was lower, but this is all hypothetical) - that would be worth almost £50m in "today" money. but their turnover in 2014 was over £433m. So, to get a 'fair' representation of the value of that fee in todays money, you'd probably have to multiply your £450k by £433m/£50m, which by my calculations equals £3.897m.

There's a fairly good chance this isn't accurate - because ive no idea what 1988 Man Utd's turnover was, but the point I'm making is that simply using an inflation calculator to compare values is pointless. Bread in 1990 may have cost half of what it costs now, but if I'm earning 20 times as much money, the impact of the increase is not felt as much.

[hector]

Yes. they are.

You're basing that solely on the rate of inflation, which although a good guide for comparing the price of a loaf of bread from 1973 with now, is probably not an accurate reflection of the 'cost' of Lee Sharpe back then. Sharpe was sold prior to the huge Sky led windfalls that Premiership clubs have seen since the late nineties, so taken as a proportion of income, I'd guess that Sharpe was a lot more expensive - as a percentage of Manchester United's turnover - than that. As an example, let's say that back then MU's turnover was £20m (id guess it was lower, but this is all hypothetical) - that would be worth almost £50m in "today" money. but their turnover in 2014 was over £433m. So, to get a 'fair' representation of the value of that fee in todays money, you'd probably have to multiply your £450k by £433m/£50m, which by my calculations equals £3.897m.

There's a fairly good chance this isn't accurate - because ive no idea what 1988 Man Utd's turnover was, but the point I'm making is that simply using an inflation calculator to compare values is pointless. Bread in 1990 may have cost half of what it costs now, but if I'm earning 20 times as much money, the impact of the increase is not felt as much.

But the price of bread for someone not on the same salary is the price of bread, as it is the price of bread for someone on a salary that is much higher. The earnings of an individual bear no relevance as there will be people with far less having to pay the same. We do not get charged different prices for bread in relation to our salaries. Therefore, a Lee Sharpe in 1988 cost what a Lee Sharpe in 1988 did regardless of who the purchaser is. It was the market Man Utd could afford to shop in. It's probably unlikely they would be spending that money on an untried teenager from a 4th division club when they can now afford elite players they couldn't in 1988. The fact they have more money to spend now doesn't increase the *value* of Lee Sharpe in terms of their turnover then - in the same way a loaf of bread may be less of your turnover than it was 20 years ago, but it might not be for someone else.

You've lived in America for too long!