Is Darren Bent worth more than Henry?

[Newcastle Fan]

 

Spurs have just paid more to buy Darren Bent than Barcelona parted with to sign Thierry Henry.

 

Bent - above average striker who has made no impact at international level with England - £16.5m

 

Henry - world superstar and one of the finest talents of the modern era - £16.1m.

 

Those facts, presented in such stark terms, hint at the madness of the Premiership market.

 

In mitigation, Spurs have effectively paid a West Ham premium after Alan Curbishley earlier agreed a mind-boggling £17m deal for his former striker.

 

Also, it appears that if any clubs attempt to buy a footballer who is young and English, several million pounds is automatically added to the price.

 

Some might also say it is a combination of Spurs paying too much for Bent and Arsenal not getting enough for Henry.

 

And Spurs could also sell Bent in years to come for a healthy fee, whereas there will be little sell-on value for Barcelona.

 

Henry is also much nearer the end of his career than Bent, but still ...

 

What is not in dispute is that Bent is not, and is unlikely to be, as good as Henry at any stage in his career.

 

If he was, he might make more England squads.

 

The very notion that Bent could go for more than Henry is a ludicrous one.

 

But football has, in so many ways, become ludicrous.

 

It is also a fact that Spurs have paid too much. Sorry, but Bent is simply not a £16.5m player.

 

Spurs boss Martin Jol will consider it money well spent if Bent's goals secure a trophy and a place in the top four next season.

 

But this deal is a tribute to the negotiating skills of Charlton Athletic, who really have dragged every last penny out of their friends from White Hart Lane.

 

This is not a criticism of Bent, a good striker without being top class, merely a comment on a startlingly-priced deal.

 

And you can be sure the fall-out is not over.

 

It gives Spurs an embarrassment of attacking riches, but when and how will Jol choose to deploy them?

 

It certainly looks bad for Mido.

 

Bent has clearly not signed up for a place in the shadows, so there will be a serious threat to the first choice of Dimitar Berbatov and Robbie Keane.

 

It is even more of a threat to Jermain Defoe, who will now surely leave Spurs.

 

As a goalscorer, I would take Defoe ahead of Bent every time - and it is a safe bet there will be a few Premiership managers who agree.

 

Jol clearly thinks differently and I will happily bow to his superior knowledge if Bent proves worth this astonishing amount of money.

 

Time will tell if he has spent wisely.

 

 

Shit article imo but will make for a very good thread

 

Honestly, Emile Heskey for 5m, Kerion Dyer is still rated as a 5m+ player, what is wrong with people these days

[BlufPurdi]

If only talent and skill was what you based a price on, then no, but there's a multitude of other factors that need to be considered. One being a club's unwillingness to sell.  Pointless debate, as it's clear as day he's not.

[Newcastle Fan]

If only talent and skill was what you based a price on, then no, but there's a multitude of other factors that need to be considered.  One being a club's unwillingness to sell.

 

You don't buy Darren fucking Bent for 17m just because Charlton wouldn't sell him for anything else, you simply go look for better/cheaper players, unless Martins Jol is 110% confident that Darren Bent is the man he needs to finish in the top 4 next season i can't see any point in this deal anyway.

[BlufPurdi]

It's like the Carrick deal with Man U, they're paying to get a player they want, the price comes second. Jol obviously believes Bent is the future worth investing in.

[Guest samtoonarmy]

Darren Bent is definatley not worth more than Henry. Like you said Henry is a proven goalscorer and is a fantastic footballer. Darren Bent is just a decent striker and he hasn't even got more than 20 goals in the Premiership yet - something Henry has done in many seasons in the Premiership.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Unless of course west hams bid was a deal to inflate the price for anyone else who wanted him.  A deal for charlton not joining in the complaint about Tevez?

[Kev]

Bent isnt worth that amount of money!

yes hes young compared to Henry but you could get 1 or 2 excellent strikers for £16.5 million

maybe a striker and a midfielder

henry scored more goals in a season!

im not certain whether bent is an excellent player i think hes over-rated (hes still a good player)

[tmonkey]

Reasons for Bent being valued the same as Henry:

 

1) Bent should have a reasonable sell on value in a few years time (eg 10mill+) if he maintains his form to a certain degree. Henry will command a relatively small fee in 4/5 years time as hell be nearing retirement.

 

2) Bent's career is on the up. Henry's seems to be waning somewhat, hence his need to seek a fresh challenge.

 

3) Bent has scored heavily in the Premiership for a shit team with no good players. Charlton will naturally argue that hes worth more because in a good team he should be performing to an even higher standard. Hes also very athletic and rarely injured, on top of being relatively youngish, hence the exaggerated fee.

 

Ultimately, hes one third the player Henry is, but the world hasnt gone completely mad as there is some logic in the price tag. Im just delighted its not us who have forked out that amount on someone who isnt as naturally talented as youd expect them to be for that amount.

[Unbelievable]

As it says in the article, youngish English players are ridiculously overpriced most of the time. Arsenal could get Ryan Babel for a third of what Spurs paid for Bent (and at a third of the wages) and have a player of similar ability and potential.. I'm surprised Martin Jol went for Bent, as he has seemed well aware of this in the past, and has usually gone for cheaper, continental players. Anyway, he must have got a big lump of money at his disposal. Could be some truth in those Berbatov to Man U rumours..

[Guest Kenton Magpie]

Course he isnt, the only reason he appears to be is that Spurs have paid over the odds and Arsenal had no choice but to accept a decent sized offer for Henry or risk losing him for a even lower fee or for nowt when his contract is up.

[Guest Town-Toon]

The value of most things is only relevant to that which someone will pay for it.  Considering Henry in the first instance, there will be only a certain number of team that Henry would move to, I bet that there would be plenty of team that could afford more than £16m for henry.  However Arsenal knew that Henry would only move to a small number of teams (in this instance Barca).

 

In the case of Bent.  West Ham had already had a bid of £17m accepted but Bent turned down, this was Charltons asking price.  Tottenham probably knew that Darren Bent would be moving back to the premiership this transfer window and did not want to get themselves in a bidding war.  This is why they have gone in with a bid that they knew other teams would be reluctant to match.  They got their man althought the have probably (obviuously to others, including me) paid over the odds.

[Guest js]

don't forget the wages as well, over the course of Henry's 4 year contract, Barcelona would have paid 10m more for Henry than spurs for Bent. that, plus the sell on value assuming zero for Henry and a more-reasonable 10m for Bent, would make Henry 20m more expensive give or take a couple of million.

also there are the intangibles involved. spurs are building up a team with an english core/atmosphere and bent fits the bill to a t for them. that probably makes Bent worth more dosh for them.

 

i hate to say this but Spurs seem clear about their vision in terms of what kind of team they want to build. we never had anything of that like since sir Bobby left thanks to the two inept managers we've had at the helm after him. hopefully big sam has the vision/concept.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

don't underestimate the fact that arsenal were selling henry abroad in order to stop him playing for a premiership rival

 

wenger has a history of this, selling his players abroad for not always phenomenal fees in order to stop them joining a rival - viera went relatively cheap i seem to remember too, and although he got better fees for petit/overmars and of course anelka he still sold them abroad

 

if liverpool had bid for henry, or obviously chel$ki or man u, you're talking a 25m price tag for sure....selling to barca for a lower fee ensures someone they rate extremely highly isn't a direct threat to them next season and in the future....

[Guest woffy_27]

makes me laugh that hes even mentioned in the same breath an thierry henry

[olliemort]

Spurs are a bunch of donkeys!they prob think he his!if bet is worth 16mil than henry is worth 116mil!

[Guest Owen 4 Ever]

Spurs

 

I don't believe that a team would make this transfer.. Darren Bent is a good player.. but not with this price.. that's one of the transfers that may not be useful..

[Shearer9]

don't underestimate the fact that arsenal were selling henry abroad in order to stop him playing for a premiership rival

 

wenger has a history of this, selling his players abroad for not always phenomenal fees in order to stop them joining a rival - viera went relatively cheap i seem to remember too, and although he got better fees for petit/overmars and of course anelka he still sold them abroad

 

if liverpool had bid for henry, or obviously chel$ki or man u, you're talking a 25m price tag for sure....selling to barca for a lower fee ensures someone they rate extremely highly isn't a direct threat to them next season and in the future....

My guess is that those were just continental players who would only play for one manager in England: Wenger.  They wound up back on the continent because that's where they started and are comfortable.  I dunno about Overmars and Pires, but Anelka, Henry, and Vieira were all pretty heartfelt on a move away from Arsenal, and when players that talented want to leave that badly, then they usually get what they want.

[Guest NUFC4]

NOOOOOO