ManjingAn offer of £121 million for andersen in the middle of the nottingham forest almost pre-empted the “ceiling” of the supermarket this summer. But even more embarrassing is the comparison: two years ago, when anderson was transferred from newcastle, the price was £15 million. Will this huge upturn allow all the players in the back to be raised
The point of debate is not as simple as "a player is worth nothing". The report calls for a chain of fears: howe would be worried about the money being used as a reference. As long as there was a sufficiently visible “fence point” in the market, it would be difficult for subsequent negotiations to return to the previous logic. The person you're going to buy is not the same person, but the other person would probably say, "do you think you're a little less reasonable when they pay the price?"
More realistic conflicts remain behind。ArsenalChelsea and mansion are watching the market changes brought about by this. Because once a team like vera announces on rogers a level near or above £100 million, others will find that the “reasonable space” at the negotiating table has been compressed. You can't cut the price. They don't use data to convince you. They use market references to get you back。
In the end, it was not the players' ability that was discussed but the bargaining rules that were quietly changed. For the first time, many people would look at the news and focus on the numbers themselves. But when you open it down, the real pain is that whoever puts the price up first is easier to take the initiative. As long as one succeeds in holding a “new ceiling”, the rest of the club faces a dilemma. Yes, it might be more expensive; no, i'm afraid of missing the window, passive。
This explains why arsenal's actions are more than one target. It refers to their simultaneous pursuit of rogers and other independent transactions. The more the conversion window looks like a time-consuming scene, the more the multi-wire propulsion will understand. Rather than suddenly becoming greedy, they feared that the chain effect of higher prices would fall on themselves. A particular road is stuck and at least another road can continue to advance the formation planning。
There is also a clear contrast. Anderson, in his public message, was described as having been on the team in england but had not yet joined the championship. Using this experience to raise the offer of £121 million is difficult to see. Such “identity contrasts” can directly trigger a generalization: some people feel out of line, others feel more like market power. The competition among fans and the hotter the comment area, in fact, is a sign of mistrust of the “pricing logic” itself。
Then there will be a more realistic cognitive shift. Many people used to interpret the transition as “a bargain for the value of ability”. But now it's more like "set anchor before talking about value." the later you enter the negotiations, the easier you will be affected by the new anchor; the more you will want to complete the same position during the same season, the easier you will be forced to accept higher prices. This is not a question of who is “good” or “smart”, but a market structure that forces participants to choose。
If you put your eyes back into ordinary life, you will find that this mechanism is not new. The same is often the case in the workplace: a job is suddenly lifted because of a shortage or a public salary increase. After a while, you'll find that "the space that seemed reasonable earlier" is missing. Hr could explain responsibilities, performance, experience, but the other side most frequently took the new pole. The market's “point price” essentially moved this workplace pricing logic to another field。
There is also a reality that can be easily ignored in terms of family and income. For many people, the team's spending seems to be just a number, but behind the discussion is actually talking about “how costs are channelled”. When top clubs are more willing to pay for their results, other clubs tend to interpret this as “negotiable space”. It was not the success or failure of a given sale that was subsequently magnified, but the pressure of expenditure on the whole industry. You'll find that the controversy is going on round by round for the simple reason that, once the rules are rewritten, someone will continue to push costs forward in the same way。
From today's report, rogers' fight is likely to be the first “test”. If vera’s bid is really going up this market anchor, whether arsenal will continue to add or change his countervailing strategy will have a direct impact on public judgment as to whether the market is out of control. Even if you don't follow every rumor, you can see why it's easy to talk about this: it's not just a trade within the sports circles, it's telling everyonePrice systemOnce rewrited by a few, all subsequent participants are readapted。
Finally, a discussion hook is left for comment. What exactly do you think should worry most this summer about: the price itself, or the chain effect of “the market never returns after the anchor has been set up”