Primer on Player Acquisition

[Drocca]

How does the whole transfer and loan stuff work? I saw a story on Suarez going to Italy for instance. So is he a free agent? What does Liverpool do to replace him? Buy a striker from a lesser team? Is everyone just always available. I'm confused, yo.

 

[SilasCL]

Wikipedia has a reasonable summary of transfers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_%28association_football%29
 
Suarez is not a free agent, he is under contract with Liverpool. Liverpool has the ability to allow Suarez to negotiate a new contract with a new team, so long as that new team gives Liverpool enough money for that privilege. Suarez can then negotiate a new contract with this new team, generally with a big raise. If the transfer goes through then Liverpool gets the transfer fee that the teams have agreed upon. Liverpool would then have that cash to do what they wish, reinvest in other players from lesser teams, or invest in their training ground, stadium, etc.
 
In practice almost every team is a selling team, aside from the top 5-10 teams in Europe who have enough money that they only give away players they no longer need and buy the best players from everyone else.
 
Somewhat counter-intuitively this system gives the majority of the power to the player. If they are unhappy with a team or their wages they can request a transfer, and the team has little choice but to sell them. The only alternative is to keep an unhappy player on the roster. If the player has 3-4 years left on his contract they may not want to upset their team too much for fear of being exiled to the bench or reserve team, but players with 1-2 years left on their contract have almost all the power to get a transfer.
 
Loans are mostly done to allow promising young players to play for smaller clubs instead of sitting on the bench. The small club generally pays a fee and a percentage of the players wages and the player joins that team for an agreed upon period of time. See Romelu Lukaku or Gerard Deulofeu, both loaned to Everton this past year. The conventional wisdom is that playing first team minutes for a smaller club is more valuable than training and playing reserve matches with a bigger team. This happens with many young players, not just big names. Occasionally you'll see older players loaned out to other clubs, usually when they are on a big salary but are unlikely to play for the big club they're contracted with. This allows the big club to save some money while losing an unimportant piece of their team. See: Gareth Barry, also on Everton this year.

 

[Titans Bastard]

Transfers
 
Except in MLS and (sort of) Liga MX, there are no trades in soccer like there are in typical American sports.  When a player signs a contract with a club, it is not transferrable.  Therefore, players move clubs in the following ways:
 
1. Free transfer, which in Europe is also known as a Bosman transfer, named after an insignificant Belgian player named Jean-Marc Bosman who couldn't move to a small club in France because they wouldn't pay a transfer fee for him even though he was out of contract.  The Bosman case was basically the end of the European soccer version of the reserve clause.  Overall, this is the way the majority of all players move, although that majority is weighted towards the lower levels of the sport.  In the EPL and other large leagues, most players brought in come in on transfer fees.  But when you are talking about a lower-tier Swiss league team, for example, they're going to save their expenses for wages and not spend money on transfer fees when there are plenty of players suitable for their level on a free.  Also, lots of smaller clubs particularly in small countries simply don't have much money.
 
2. Transfer fees.  Club A is interested in Player X, who plays for Club B.  Club A can approach Club B with a transfer fee, which is essentially compensation for letting Player X out of his contract early.  If Club B accepts the offer, Club A can negotiate a contract with Player X.  That's the process.  Most leagues have "transfer windows" when teams are allowed to acquire players.  However, all across the world there's always a transfer window open somewhere.  For example, MLS teams can buy players in March, but not English teams.  So an MLS team could buy a player from an English club at that time, but not vice versa.
 
Some other random things:
 
* Often, players will have a "release clause" in their contract.  This means that if another club offers a certain amount of money, the player's club is required to accept the offer.  For example, Bayern bought Mario Götze for €37m because that was the release clause in his contract with Borussia Dortmund.  At that point, there was little Dortmund could do.  They could in theory offer him a larger contract and hope he would take it and stay, but Bayern has more financial firepower and more prestige, so Götze was always going to go.
 
* Larger clubs can try to "unsettle" players with transfer talk.  A transfer with a fee almost always results in a larger contract.  Why would you sign with a new club if it's a pay cut?  So when a bigger club starts honing in on a player who is ready to make a jump in salary and club prestige, the smaller club feels forced to sell so that they don't have an unhappy, unmotivated player.  The smaller club also doesn't want to develop a reputation for being a place where players can't progress, as that could pose a problem when trying to attract young and ambitious players.
 
3. Loans.  Sometimes a player will join a new club on loan.  His old club still holds his contract, but allows a new club to use him for a period of time.  Often a loan period can be a full season or a half season or sometimes just a month.  Loans are usually done for several reasons.
 
* The first is developmental.  When a young player has outgrown reserve leagues (which are often a little weak) but isn't ready for first-team soccer at the club, he might be loaned out to a lower level.  This is especially common in Italy, where this practice has essentially taken the place of any reserve league or structure.  It's also fairly common in England.  In Germany, Spain, and France, clubs maintain reserve teams at the lower levels of the soccer pyramid and young players go on loan less frequently.
 
* The second is salvaging value from a crappy contract.  Let's say a club made a bad signing and no longer has use for a player.  They can't sell him because he's not worth the contract he has and nobody would be willing to pay as much or more.  One way to mitigate this sunk cost is to loan him out.  While developmental loans are frequently free for the lower-level club, these loans can involve a small fee or, more likely, the new club agrees to pay a percentage of the player's salary.  The player gets paid his full amount, the original club gets out from some of the player's cost, and the new club gets the player at a more reasonable amount.
 
* Loans also come with various stipulations.  Beyond the aforementioned loan fee (which often is $0) and the way the player's wages are cut up, often there are rules.  These include a recall clause (player can be summoned to the mother club at any time), a clause stating the player can't play against the mother club (if they are in the same league) or that a player can't play in the cup to prevent him from being cup-tied (if the clubs are in the same country), and so on.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

What I always struggle with is that European soccer players are referred to in terms of their transfer fees, even though they don't see a nickel of that. So, for example, one will see Gareth Bale referred to as the "€100 million man", or whatever the number was that Spurs received from Real Madrid.

I rarely hear anything about how much these guys make. In the US, it's always about the total value of the contract they are getting paid. The only thing I occasionally read is that a certain player gets paid so much per week. What's up with that? Why not report the value as an annual number?

 

[Infield Infidel]

While there aren't traditional trades like in American sports, players can be added to a transfer fee as part of a transfer package in order to acquire a player. For instance, Barcelona added Samuel Eto'o to the transfer fee that it gave to Inter Milan, in order to get Zlatan Ibrahimovic a few years back. This move made sense for both clubs since the players play similar positions, and it saved Barca some money. 

 

[Titans Bastard]

While there aren't traditional trades like in American sports, players can be added to a transfer fee as part of a transfer package in order to acquire a player. For instance, Barcelona added Samuel Eto'o to the transfer fee that it gave to Inter Milan, in order to get Zlatan Ibrahimovic a few years back. This move made sense for both clubs since the players play similar positions, and it saved Barca some money. 

 
While that's true and it's billed as a trade, it's still not quite a trade in terms of its functionality.  It's just two clubs selling each other players.  Both Eto'o and Ibrahimovic could have scuttled the deal if they didn't want to move and had to sign new contracts with their new clubs.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Yeah, for Eto'o, it's basically like a guy withdrawing his no-trade clause on the conditions of liking the team and getting a new contract. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

What I always struggle with is that European soccer players are referred to in terms of their transfer fees, even though they don't see a nickel of that. So, for example, one will see Gareth Bale referred to as the "€100 million man", or whatever the number was that Spurs received from Real Madrid.

I rarely hear anything about how much these guys make. In the US, it's always about the total value of the contract they are getting paid. The only thing I occasionally read is that a certain player gets paid so much per week. What's up with that? Why not report the value as an annual number?

That's just how the British press do it for some reason.
The highest paid last year if you were wondering was Ronaldo who made $49M in salary and bonuses. (plus another $24M in endorsements) according to Forbes.

 

[Billy R Ford]

To add an anecdote about transfer fees for American fans, David Beckham was signed as a marquee superstar for the Los Angeles Galaxy in 2006, and went on loan to AC Milan of Milan, Italy in January 2009 in part to stay in shape during the MLS off-season (which runs during the summer).
 
After he played well for AC Milan, both Beckham and Milan wanted to transfer him- pay a transfer fee to MLS and then have him start playing for AC Milan permanently. Beckham wanted this. AC Milan wanted this. MLS did not want this, as they had invested heavily in Beckham as a marketable player.
 
What resulted was an interesting battle between the American sports "way of doing things" versus the European sports "way of doing things". Because Beckham himself had requested a transfer request, soccer news coverage around the world absolutely mocked and derided the LA Galaxy and MLS as not understanding how soccer worked. To their minds, if a player actually formally put in a request, it was practically a foregone conclusion that he would leave, even if he was under contract.
 
However, MLS and the Galaxy put their foot down, as Beckham was formally under contract. Though push came to shove in the media, it never even came close to court. Beckham was under contract with the LA Galaxy, and he soon enough returned. Though he may have been angry at the time, he eventually helped the Galaxy win back-to-back championships in 2010 and 2011.
 
Just goes to show how different the player market really is.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

That's just how the British press do it for some reason.
The highest paid last year if you were wondering was Ronaldo who made $49M in salary and bonuses. (plus another $24M in endorsements) according to Forbes.

So do the players sign contracts like they do here in the US. I mean, did Ronaldo sign a 5 year/$250 million contract with Real Madrid?
Are contracts not public knowledge like they are here?

 

[cjdmadcow]

So do the players sign contracts like they do here in the US. I mean, did Ronaldo sign a 5 year/$250 million contract with Real Madrid?
Are contracts not public knowledge like they are here?

 
Officially, no. There is nothing in the league's regulations that requires public disclosure of any financial information, whether that be transfer fee or player wages, but as is always the case there are plenty of ways that it does become public knowledge - usually via players agents and internal sources inside individual clubs. 
 
A lot of the higher-paid players would definitely prefer it if it was not in the public domain as it's often used as a stick to beat them with when things go wrong.

 

[Drocca]

Ok, so here's some more dumb questions that I will rattle off stream of consciousness style. So, obviously only the richest clubs get the best players in their prime (or, I'm assuming, a bit after their prime if the Club makes bad decisions). Does this make it difficult to root for individual players? Also, if you don't follow one of the super rich teams do you start to sort of scout teams a level below you for possible new talent? Here's an example I am thinking of: with the Spurs, say you have a young player that is just playing beautifully. If rumors start circulating that Barcelona is interested, then it's over for you as a fan with that player, right? You have to start looking at alternatives? Does this fuck with your psyche? I mean, I understand that it is similar to free agency and, as a Red Sox fan in 2014, I am lucky enough to root for one of the rich teams, but that is mitigated somewhat in American sports by the length of the contract. You have a definite timetable when you may lose your young star, and there are incentives in every sport in one way or another, for the young stars to stay with teams. But here, the worst thing that can happen is someone starts to play really, really well? That kind of sucks.
 
I was watching England play in the first game and basically was like, "Where does Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling play, Christ they are awesome." So, of course, I'm all pumped when I see that they play on the same Club so if I wanted to follow them I could, like, follow them playing together. (Seriously, these two are so fucking exciting and Sterling is 19!). So I'm bandying about the ole' internet and see that Suarez is going to Barcelona. That's what got me thinking of this. It would suck to get invested in a player and then right when they get awesome (I am not actually using Suarez as this example as obviously he may have already had his best years) they are gone.

 

[Zomp]

Yes, it happens all the time.  Players leave and new ones are brought in.  Sometimes it saddens you, sometimes you are thrilled they left.
 
I don't know if its ever "over for you" with the player unless they go to a rival.  If Suarez, for example, went to Barcelona I doubt Dlew or SFIC would stop liking him as a player.  If they get drawn together in the Champions League I think he'd get a hell of a reception.  With some smaller clubs, they have to sell players to exist.  They develop them, make a profit, buy more youth and start the cycle again.  Players that play for one club their whole career are rare.  I can think of maybe 5 who I'd consider big time players that are currently a one club pro.
 
 
One thing I'll mention which seemed really hard for me to grasp when I first started really getting into the sport, is contracts basically mean nothing.  At first it was hard for me to grasp because as an example you'd get headlines like "Suarez earns new 5 year contract".  But really its just a pay raise from him, as if he plays well enough one of two things will happen. Some team will try to buy him, or he'll "earn" another 5 year contract the next year at a higher pay.  When a player transfers to a new club, they write up a new contract and pay rate.

 

[DJnVa]

You gotta root for the laundry.
 
As a Spurs fan it sucked when Bale left and it sucked more when the money they got for him didn't help. That said I had been following Bale since he came to the Spurs and it's hard to turn that off so I kept up with him when he moved to Real Madrid. I guess in the end it's about the player and how they leave--just like other sports. Boston fans didn't mind Ray Bourque leaving but hated Clemens.

 

[Drocca]

Thanks, Zomp. Here's a follow-up. Understanding that each situation is probably unique, what is the typical timetable from rumor to actual transfer? If you start reading some rumors, is he gone or is there gamesmanship sometimes? Real Madrid, for instance, is rumored to be interested in Sterling. But he's obviously pretty young. Does that mean they are interested in him long term, or does that mean he probably plays for them next season? I'm honestly just using him as an example because of his age. I'm mostly interested in how the process typically plays out, time-wise.

 

[Zomp]

Cristiano Ronaldo was rumored to go to Real Madrid for about 3 years before it happened.
 
Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva were transferred to PSG in a matter of hours after the rumors circulated.
 
It all depends.
 
In a case like Sterling, he's young enough to where Liverpool would be wise to hang onto him for a few years to see if they can raise his value (thats if he wants to leave, I honestly don't know).  However, if a club came in and offered stupid money, say fifty million pounds, they might jump because who knows how he'll progress?

 

[Zomp]

Also not all rumors come true.  Since Real Madrid spend the most money on transfers they are linked to literally every single player who plays well at a tournament or big game.

 

[teddykgb]

Believe less than 10% of what you read.  Teams are "interested" in the papers all the time.  Most potential transfers you read about won't happen.  Things are much more real when the player starts speaking openly about it, although they often have to do it in goofy ways because they have "loyalty bonuses" which cause them to lose money if they request a transfer.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Ok, so here's some more dumb questions that I will rattle off stream of consciousness style. So, obviously only the richest clubs get the best players in their prime (or, I'm assuming, a bit after their prime if the Club makes bad decisions). Does this make it difficult to root for individual players? Also, if you don't follow one of the super rich teams do you start to sort of scout teams a level below you for possible new talent? Here's an example I am thinking of: with the Spurs, say you have a young player that is just playing beautifully. If rumors start circulating that Barcelona is interested, then it's over for you as a fan with that player, right? You have to start looking at alternatives? Does this fuck with your psyche? I mean, I understand that it is similar to free agency and, as a Red Sox fan in 2014, I am lucky enough to root for one of the rich teams, but that is mitigated somewhat in American sports by the length of the contract. You have a definite timetable when you may lose your young star, and there are incentives in every sport in one way or another, for the young stars to stay with teams. But here, the worst thing that can happen is someone starts to play really, really well? That kind of sucks.
 
 

 
Yes, it does fuck with your psyche a little bit. On the good side, if your team sell a player to a bigger club, your team will likely get a lot more than what they purchased him for. Just like in baseball, player acquisitions are an investment. What you have to hope is that they reinvest those funds into young players that will in the future get sold for more money. 
 
The big thing is that there are always more players, not just in lower levels, but in other countries. At least in England, players in other countries are generally cheaper to transfer in. You hope your team scouts very well. Also gotta hope they can develop young players in their academy. 
 
There also is a nebulous limit to how many guys the big clubs can buy. There are only so many minutes and so many goals. If Real Madrid want to buy Rademel Falcao, Karim Benzema, who plays a similar position, might force his way out. The big clubs have to be wary of that. 
 
On a player by player basis, it's all across the board. Most teams have a few career guys, guys who will be there for most of their prime. Evra, Coloccini, Gerrard, Howard, Lampard, Guti, Puyol, who are happy to stay where they are as long as they get bumps in pay now and then.  Many times, like with Howard, the player moved up too early, or the bigger club was impatient, and the player took a step back down and settles into a great career. These kinds of players give the team its identity.
 
There are a lot of one and done's. Sometimes you get a guy, he's awesome for a year and then someone comes in with an outrageous offer, or he has a low transfer release clause, and he's gone. In those cases, adios. Other times he sucks and the club figures out a way to dump him. They can subsidize a loan to a smaller club, they can negotiate a release, or they can sell him for pennies on the dollar. 
 
But mostly you have a guy for a few years, enjoy the ride if they are good, and then hope they are replaced with someone with potential. 

 

[DJnVa]

Thanks, Zomp. Here's a follow-up. Understanding that each situation is probably unique, what is the typical timetable from rumor to actual transfer? If you start reading some rumors, is he gone or is there gamesmanship sometimes? Real Madrid, for instance, is rumored to be interested in Sterling. But he's obviously pretty young. Does that mean they are interested in him long term, or does that mean he probably plays for them next season? I'm honestly just using him as an example because of his age. I'm mostly interested in how the process typically plays out, time-wise.

 
Each association also has specific transfer windows:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_window

 

[Drocca]

This is awesome stuff.
 
One of the things you notice in the World Cup is how different teams play together. Some teams have a lot of excellent individual players that just don't mesh. I understand that on a National level, a team may use a midfielder as a center back or have too many similar types of players. There's also not a lot of time to gel together.
 
But on the Club level playing together is obviously hugely important. So if Real Madrid just goes out and buys players that have huge tournaments, how are they able to maintain any consistency?

 

[Merkle's Boner]

Spurs sold Bale last summer for 100 million pounds.  They used that money to bring in seven players, costing them a total of 105 million pounds. 
 
Paulinho-17
Chadli-7
Soldado-26 !!!!
Capoue- 9
Chiriches- 8.5
Eriksen- 11.5
Lamela- 26
 
One can look at this as a 7 for 1 trade and make oneself feel happy for getting rid of Bale for such a motherlode of talent. One would be wrong.

 

[teddykgb]

This is awesome stuff.
 
One of the things you notice in the World Cup is how different teams play together. Some teams have a lot of excellent individual players that just don't mesh. I understand that on a National level, a team may use a midfielder as a center back or have too many similar types of players. There's also not a lot of time to gel together.
 
But on the Club level playing together is obviously hugely important. So if Real Madrid just goes out and buys players that have huge tournaments, how are they able to maintain any consistency?

 
They buy really fucking good players, buy a lot of them, then sell off the ones that don't fit.  They still fail to win as much as you'd/they'd expect.

 

[Zomp]

Yeah Madrid is a single case of buying just to buy and worrying about fitting the pieces in later.  But it helps when nearly all of your starting 11 would start for any other club in the world (save for maybe 2 or 3).  In fact, many teams have made out very well buying players that Madrid call flops.  Arjen Robben, for example, was sold because he didn't fit in the team.  Bayern are one of if not the best team in the world and he's a huge part of it.  Wesley Sneijder was sold at a loss to Inter Milan and immediately became the focal point of the whole team when they won the treble.

 

[RSN Diaspora]

Soldado-26 !!!!

 
I've only been a Spurs fan for a few years, but has there been a worse signing in recent memory?

 

[Seven Costanza]

What you have to hope is that they reinvest those funds into young players that will in the future get sold for more money. 

 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
EDIT: this is a Newcastle joke for those unaware

 

[DJnVa]

 
I've only been a Spurs fan for a few years, but has there been a worse signing in recent memory?

 
The team style didn't seem to fit with him. The fans never really seemed to turn on him.

 

[cjdmadcow]

This is awesome stuff.
 
One of the things you notice in the World Cup is how different teams play together. Some teams have a lot of excellent individual players that just don't mesh. I understand that on a National level, a team may use a midfielder as a center back or have too many similar types of players. There's also not a lot of time to gel together.
 
But on the Club level playing together is obviously hugely important. So if Real Madrid just goes out and buys players that have huge tournaments, how are they able to maintain any consistency?

 
The two extremes of player acquisition and player development are best demonstrated by the Man Utd team of the 90's and Real Madrid since the start of the Galacticos period
 
Under the stewardship of Ferguson at ManU (aka red-nosed bastard) a group of players were developed from their teenage years and brought through to the first team as a unit, producing remarkable success against a relatively low transfer budget - Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Butt, Neville G & P to name a few.
 
Real Madrid require instant success because of the millions they spend but also they have a hire & fire policy with regards to management so they've got no time to develop teams. It's win now or 'See Ya'.

 

[soxfan121]

 
The team style didn't seem to fit with him. 

 
Which team style? No, that's wrong.
 
There was a team style?
 
The Spurs example is pretty instructive on a number of levels. Great teams seem to know where each other are or how they will move. Teams with tons of new players have no familiarity and thus, look disjointed when Player A makes a run while Player B passes to the empty space Player A just left behind. You could take 11 of the best players on all other teams and they'd lose to a well-drilled, well-organized team that's played all season together. (This is also a frequent criticism on international or World Cup football - that the players don't know each other well enough to play well together). 
 
Another factor being the manager/philosophy needs to fit the talent. You can't play tiki-taka possession soccer with Andy Carroll. You can't play Route One, "send it up to the big man" soccer with Wayne Rooney. You can play a high defensive line if you have defenders with pace and technical skill to play their way out of trouble. You cannot play a high defensive line with Michael Dawson or any number of big, slow galoots who rely on positioning and physicality instead of speed and touch. 

 

[coremiller]

 
I've only been a Spurs fan for a few years, but has there been a worse signing in recent memory?

 
It's just one season.  A lot of players have struggled in their first EPL season with the transition and improved afterwards.  It looks bad now, but not worst ever.  Sergei Rebrov and David Bentley were definitely worse, for example.
 
In the non-Spurs category, Soldado wasn't even the worst signing last year.  That was easily Ricky van Wolfswinkel.  He was Norwich's record signing for 8.5m gbp and he scored just one goal in 25 appearances while Norwich got relegated with the fewest goals scored in the league.

 

[DJnVa]

Hell, the Spurs may be able to top Soldado with Lamela.

 

[soxfan121]

Hell, the Spurs may be able to top Soldado with Lamela.

 
Lamela is Sidd Finch.

 

[URI]

You gotta root for the laundry.
 
As a Spurs fan it sucked when Bale left and it sucked more when the money they got for him didn't help. That said I had been following Bale since he came to the Spurs and it's hard to turn that off so I kept up with him when he moved to Real Madrid. I guess in the end it's about the player and how they leave--just like other sports. Boston fans didn't mind Ray Bourque leaving but hated Clemens.

And he made us 20m extra pounds this year. Plus another 5 from Luka.

 

[URI]

I've only been a Spurs fan for a few years, but has there been a worse signing in recent memory?

We'll find out next May. If they hold on to him, and he's shit, then he might be for Spurs. If he plays well, or is sold for but a small loss, then not that bad.

I mean, we spent £15 million on David Bentley, and got literally nothing from him.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Ok, so here's some more dumb questions that I will rattle off stream of consciousness style. So, obviously only the richest clubs get the best players in their prime (or, I'm assuming, a bit after their prime if the Club makes bad decisions). Does this make it difficult to root for individual players? Also, if you don't follow one of the super rich teams do you start to sort of scout teams a level below you for possible new talent? Here's an example I am thinking of: with the Spurs, say you have a young player that is just playing beautifully. If rumors start circulating that Barcelona is interested, then it's over for you as a fan with that player, right? You have to start looking at alternatives? Does this fuck with your psyche? I mean, I understand that it is similar to free agency and, as a Red Sox fan in 2014, I am lucky enough to root for one of the rich teams, but that is mitigated somewhat in American sports by the length of the contract. You have a definite timetable when you may lose your young star, and there are incentives in every sport in one way or another, for the young stars to stay with teams. But here, the worst thing that can happen is someone starts to play really, really well? That kind of sucks.
 
I was watching England play in the first game and basically was like, "Where does Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling play, Christ they are awesome." So, of course, I'm all pumped when I see that they play on the same Club so if I wanted to follow them I could, like, follow them playing together. (Seriously, these two are so fucking exciting and Sterling is 19!). So I'm bandying about the ole' internet and see that Suarez is going to Barcelona. That's what got me thinking of this. It would suck to get invested in a player and then right when they get awesome (I am not actually using Suarez as this example as obviously he may have already had his best years) they are gone.

 
The X factor when is comes to following a team is that it involves so much more than just what's on the pitch or the front office. There's a romance to it, a community aspect that any supporter of any team can sell you on as to why their side is the One True Club. My primary team is Celtic: a huge fish in a tiny pond that got a lot tinier with the insolvency of Rangers. The SPL has a piddling TV contract and the only way Celtic can be in the black for the year is by making the Champions League or selling any players they were fortunate enough to develop, usually both. There's no fucking way anyone should be a Celtic fan, yet they're one of the most followed clubs in the world. Their results are practically irrelevant.
 
I follow Liverpool as a counterpoint to that. Bigamy actually works in soccer, at least for me it does. Celtic and Liverpool occupy such different universes it's easy to compartmentalize things.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The other factor that sometimes doesn't really get enough consideration in terms of player acquisition and competitive balance is the wage bill (essentially, salary commitments) of various teams.  People tend to focus on the transfer numbers in thinking about how finances work, but the wages are just as important.  As you might expect, there is huge variation among clubs in their wage bills.  The latest available (2012-13) numbers from the Guardian looked like this (in millions of pounds):
 
City - £233
United - £181
Chelsea - £179
Arsenal - £154
Liverpool - £132
Spurs - £96
QPR - £78
Villa - £72
Fulham - £67
Everton - £63
Newcastle - £62
Everybody else - £44-60
 
Some observations:
 
-You will see different estimates from different sources.  These numbers have to be independently put together by journalists from club financial reports.  You can't just get them from the league office.
 
-City has blown everybody else away.  When building a powerhouse from scratch, you can't just buy every player you want, you also have to give those players a reason to sign for your club and so they have huge contracts up and down their roster.
 
-Arsenal have been notoriously cheap in terms of transfer spending but actually are not far off the pace in terms of wage bill.  A lot of that has to do with the need for squad depth when playing in the Champions League every year though.  The sheer number of players you need can vary quite a bit depending on your European commitments for the season.  Expect Liverpool's wage bill to rise this coming year, for example, as they add more depth.
 
-Everton and Newcastle are sometimes lumped with Spurs in terms of clubs just below the top tier but there is really a substantial difference between them in terms of financial power.  Spurs have the money to actually compete with the bigger clubs if that money is used well.  Everton and Newcastle?  Some might argue they have the money but, at the very least, they haven't spent much of it.
 
-Spending money is not always a great shield against relegation for a small club - QPR finished last in 2012-13 despite all their spending.
 
-The wage bills of the top teams in the Premier League are relatively high compared to other countries.  For example, while data on them is kind of sketchy, by many estimates Real Madrid and Barcelona are somewhere in the vicinity of United and Chelsea, while Bayern is probably somewhere in the vicinity of Arsenal and the Italian "giants" now have wage bills closer to that of Spurs. 

 

[DJnVa]

Everton and Newcastle are sometimes lumped with Spurs in terms of clubs just below the top tier but there is really a substantial difference between them in terms of financial power. 
 

 
Eh. Everton and Newcastle closer to Spurs than Spurs are to Liverpool (that's close, but then another huge leap to Arsenal).
 
It's almost like the Spurs are a tier unto themselves.

 

[MiracleOfO2704]

 
I follow Liverpool as a counterpoint to that. Bigamy actually works in soccer, at least for me it does. Celtic and Liverpool occupy such different universes it's easy to compartmentalize things.

Actually, I think there's a bit of a bond between Celtic and LFC dating back to Hillsborough at least, so at least that works a bit more than you think.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

 
Eh. Everton and Newcastle closer to Spurs than Spurs are to Liverpool (that's close, but then another huge leap to Arsenal).
 
It's almost like the Spurs are a tier unto themselves.

 
Sure, my point is just that they aren't very close to Spurs despite being grouped with them sometimes in the popular imagination.  Liverpool is obviously a much bigger club than Spurs and the spending reflects that.

 

[jaba]

Are there EPL teams that are known for being especially good scouts of talent? Which team is the "100 million dollar player development machine" equivalent? I know Barca has La Masia - any similar teams in EPL?

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Actually, I think there's a bit of a bond between Celtic and LFC dating back to Hillsborough at least, so at least that works a bit more than you think.

 
It works on a few levels: the Irish thing, YNWA, etc. But in terms of the types of players they can bring in, the level of their competition, and the TV viewing options they're light years apart. To say nothing of the fact that the SPL season has always been a forgone conclusion, now made even more pointless with the absence of Rangers.
 
Despite all this Celtic are still far and away my #1 team. A lot of that has to do with personal history, but in general the fanbase is more widepsread and rabid than its recent history (~30 years) would seem to justify. There's the whole sectarian angle, which is part of it, I'm sure.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

Are there EPL teams that are known for being especially good scouts of talent? Which team is the "100 million dollar player development machine" equivalent? I know Barca has La Masia - any similar teams in EPL?

Southampton?

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Are there EPL teams that are known for being especially good scouts of talent? Which team is the "100 million dollar player development machine" equivalent? I know Barca has La Masia - any similar teams in EPL?

 
West Ham has a very famous academy through which a ton of great English players moved over the years. Southampton has also produced a lot of good young players recently.  Among the big clubs, Arsenal has arguably been the most successful at producing their own players in the last decade, although sometimes the line between "true" academy players - kids who come in at 10 or something and move through the ranks, ie Jack Wilshere - and acquired academy players - kids who are actually bought or recruited from another club when they are in their late teens and then finish their footballing education in the upper ranks of the academy, ie Aaron Ramsey - is a hazy one.

 

[BigPapiLumber Co.]

I don't understand free agency.  I've seen reference in one of these threads that the Mexican keeper is a free agent this year and is making himself a boatload with his performance. Does this mean that his current club can't ask for a transfer fee?  If so, how did that happen?  And why don't other players just play out their current contracts, become free agents, and get a cut of what otherwise would be a transfer fee?

 

[soxfan121]

A player becomes a free agent when he is "out of contract". A transfer fee is paid to another club when the player still has time left on his contract. 
 
For example, Jacoby Ellsbury's contract was up, so he "left on a free". But if the Yankees wanted Jon Lester before the end of the 2014 season, they would have to agree to a transfer fee with the Red Sox before signing Lester to a contract with the MFY. And if they wanted to buy Xander Bogaerts, it would take an astronomical transfer fee. 
 
Lastly, some players have a "sell on fee" negotiated into their contract, so that if they are sold (or purchased) they get a "cut" of that fee. And remember, the player has to agree to a contract...so there's no "going somewhere you don't want to go".

 

[DLew On Roids]

 
I've only been a Spurs fan for a few years, but has there been a worse signing in recent memory?

 

 
The guy on the left cost £35 million.  The guy on the right cost a lot less.  Of course, the guy on the right was coming off a suspension for, um, biting an opponent.

 

[Quintanariffic]

 
 
One thing I'll mention which seemed really hard for me to grasp when I first started really getting into the sport, is contracts basically mean nothing.  At first it was hard for me to grasp because as an example you'd get headlines like "Suarez earns new 5 year contract".  But really its just a pay raise from him, as if he plays well enough one of two things will happen. Some team will try to buy him, or he'll "earn" another 5 year contract the next year at a higher pay.  When a player transfers to a new club, they write up a new contract and pay rate.

So I think what you're telling me here is that international football has modeled its contract framework after that of American college football and basketball coaches.

 

[cjdmadcow]

Southampton?

 
Southampton, definitely. Though they've had a few tricky moments they always seem to have been a well-run club where they know they can't compete financially with the big boys but use the millions they earn from tv revenue to fund a fantastic academy.
 
Everton have a produced a few shining lights in recent years and have always had a good reputation for youth development.
 
In the lower leagues, Crewe Alexandra have also had a great reputation, mainly due to the remarkable contribution of Dario Gradi who's been around for over 30 years - 24 of which were as manager. I've always thought it scandalous that he's never been involved with the England national side.

 

[shlincoln]

How often do teams approach a player and say "We want to do x, y, and z, but we need to sell you to pull it off?" Or are transfers entirely initiated by players/the acquiring club?

 

[soxfan121]

How often do teams approach a player and say "We want to do x, y, and z, but we need to sell you to pull it off?" Or are transfers entirely initiated by players/the acquiring club?

 
Teams probably communicate with players about transfer plans similarly to how US teams do it - only huge stars and rarely. 
 
Players are told all the time by clubs - "it is not working out, we are putting you on the transfer list". The Transfer List is basically a bulletin board announcement saying "$50 or best offer". Players who cause problems get "listed" and sold. Or they get "listed" and no one is interested at the minimum price, so the player is banished to "the Reserve team". 
 
Players can also request to be transfer listed. Clubs can choose to comply (to avoid disruptions) or choose to tell the player to go screw (which causes distractions).