Darren Bent To Aston Villa For £19 Million Is What’s Wrong With Transfers

Darren Bent’s recent transfer from Sunderland to Aston Villa for £19 million, possibly rising to £24 with incentives, is an indication, in my opinion, of why some clubs run out of funds or can quickly find themselves in administration if big results don’t follow the big purchases of players.

I am fully aware that the transfer market works on a bidding process, similar to a stock market, but like the stock market or other bidding processes, assets- in this case players- can easily be overvalued (& of course, undervalued as well) and when their sales at inflated prices go through it forces the market to trend upward, raising other players’ values.

In the stock market there are at least regulations in place to prevent massive price spikes or falls (illegal activity notwithstanding) but in sports, player markets such as the transfer market, one bad purchase at well inflated value can drive up the cost of all the other players, even the average ones.

This is not a criticism of Bent as a player, per se.  He is a good player.  He almost made the England World Cup side for South Africa last year.  The key word being almost.  Granted World Cup sides often come down to personal player traits managers like but on its face, a possibly £20+ million transfer for someone who didn’t even make a World Cup side looks a bit of overspending and a tad bit foolish. 

Compare Bent’s price tag to Dutch midfield maestro Rafael Van Der Vaart’s one of £9 million when bought by Tottenham Hotspur on the last day of the transfer window in August.  Is Aston Villa’s manager, Gérard Houllier, telling me that Bent is more than twice the player Van Der Vaart is?  That’s pure poppycock if so.  Granted, Van Der Vaart’s move had, like other transfers, circumstances all unto its own that led to the price agreed between clubs (you would think though, with Van Der Vaart being bought on the last day of the August window, the price would be inflated a bit; coincidentally, Spurs get a 10% sell-on fee for Bent’s transfer as well) but Bent being sold for twice what Van Der Vaart was paid for either makes Houllier’s purchase of Bent a very risky move of buying an overvalued player or it makes Harry Redknapp’s Van Der Vaart buy a freaking steal & mini-genius move… which as an Arsenal supporter I can’t abide since for years whenever Arsenal become interested in a player, all of a sudden a club’s valuation of certain players jump or even double. 

The purchase is certainly a risky one for Villa as they are currently mired in a relegation battle and if they were to indeed get relegated would no doubt have to offload Bent in the summer… most likely for far less than what they paid.

Ian Holloway, manager of Blackpool, and one always good for a quote, aired his opinion this evening on Bent’s figure in reference to his player Charlie Adam’s potential departure and price evaluation by Villa:

"Blackpool boss Ian Holloway is still banging on about Aston Villa’s £3.5 million offer for Charlie Adam. Asked about a fair price for Adam, he replied: “How do I work out what that market value is when clubs are paying absolutely ludicrous amounts of money for people I don’t see as being as good as Charlie? Obviously Aston Villa are a massive club, but how can they rate Darren Bent at that sort of figure [£24 million] and offer me that for Charlie? I think it is quite derisory.”"

Exactly, Mr. Holloway.  I doubt Holloway believes Adam is worth £24 million but his point is if Villa rates Bent at £24 million then Adam is certainly worth more than the £3.5 Villa offered Blackpool for the player.  Whether he (Adam) is actually that good or not is kind of beside the point because his role in Blackpool’s side is that valuable to Blackpool and likely will scare Villa off him in the end.

Are moves like Bent’s the last of a dying breed of fiscal insanity in the transfer market with financial “fair play” rules on the way in 2012-13?