What seems to be clear is that peoples* judgement of a player, or squad, is often more based on what has been paid for them, than an assessment of actual attributes relative to the playing level they are deployed at.
In an entirely meritorious system, with a perfect market for price setting, that would be a perfect guide.
Those conditions do not exist. There are various tensions causing price fluctuation beyond objective value. Demand/supply, overcoming registration holding club inertia, brand value of the player, contract status, third party inflation (eg agents), age, perceived future value, how integral to owning club, purchasing club usage and plan for realizing residual or enhanced value.
The less expertise regarding price setting the purchasing club possesses, the more they are likely to pay, for less return. Simply because other parties with their own objectives will maximise those.
Part of that is how it is believed a player might improve. Who they will learn from. What role is required of them. How they compliment the existing squad skillsets.
This identification, integration and development, is team/squad building. The absolute bottom rung of that is to start from scratch, with a bunch of players never having played at the level, and just chuck them in and see what works. Which is what we have mostly be doing. You will be, on average, very unlikely to get a return on value paid by this method. As shown by the large number of failures that we have taken a bath on.
Some consumers like the ongoing drama of constant new shiny, and will expound at length how great a player, and players, are. But actually ask them, and they can't quantity it, and they can't say how these players will fit in, contribute, and develop. They are as good as price paid. They are playing as well as numerical goals and assists. The manager is as good as results.
Except that 'aint how it actually works. They are just symptoms of the overall system, not just the club. Teams of players have to actually come together and play football.
If price setting is perfect, clubs with higher financial resources buy the players subject to their spending power, and everyone stays in the same place. Which is the actual plan of modern business. In fixtures. Against other teams of players trying to beat you. If you have a collection of the best players, you can probably make any plan mostly work. If you are at the other end of the scale you need to come up with what might be a less favorable plan, and graft through multiple disappointments to eke out your status.
If you have no idea where you actually are. You can have no idea how you are doing. What you are doing well, or badly, and what is actually a decent return. If you don't have access to the best players, you need to come up with a new way to buck your current status, or it only ends one way.
I like to see innovative coaching and player development. It looks like the model that we are going for is cozying up to the agent who has historically had some of the better quality of players. But there really should be more concern over who is price setting, what happens when the flow of cash is no longer sustainable, and what we are getting for what we spend.
* like owners.
