Snowflake RoyalSnowball A "buyers' market" suggests that due to current circumstances sellers MUST sell
and therefore buyers can low-ball.
But we already know that (unless you're in a fire-sale) a low-ball offer might
make you reconsider and hang on to your assets.
So it's a two-way thing. Buyer's may get greedy but sellers might think
it's better to hang on to the asset.
And let's not forget that if indeed prices are down buy (say 30%) RFC
will benefit if it goes into the market as a buyer.
But going back to the first paragraph. We are all presuming that Fair Play
pressure is going to force us to sell our best assets. If it becomes public
knowledge that the league says we have to ship out, cut wages etc (IF)
then obviously our disadvantage is increased.
The last couple of seasons, so far at RDG we haven't seen forced-sales and asset-stripping. In fact the opposite
Thanks snowball, at least someone got it.
Yeah but all the above doesn't mean its not a buyers market if clubs decide to hang on to the talent instead of selling on cheap doesn't negate the fact it's still a buyers market. I really depend on how much you need to sell, what the selling clubs finances are like. you specifically said 'I'm not so sure it is a buyer's market.' If we have to sell our best talents to balance the books like most of the championship i assume, then we are at the mercy of what the buying club is prepared to pay. And the big transfer money gravy train has sailed ( It's an aqua train)