Hadn't We Moved On From Crazy Transfer Fees?

2 for 1 deal: For the price of one Berbatov, you can get a Chopra and a Koumas.

Yes, that's right. For approximately the price Spurs paid for Dimitar Berbatov, you could buy Michael Chopra (struggled at Newcastle, wasn't even much good on loan to Barnsley). And you get a Jason Koumas thrown in (shown up as mediocre in the Premiership last time around).

Don't get me wrong: both players have some talent. But my question is this: is Chopra a five million quid player when Cardiff bought him for £500,000 only 12 months ago ?

And is Jason Koumas, a 27 year old who has failed to deliver at the top level, really worth the 5.3million that Wigan have just paid for him.

Despite the claims of Wigan boss Chris Hutchings, Koumas will never be anyone's Paul Scholes.

Which begs the question: why are Premiership clubs spending such outrageous sums on this calibre of player. I thought we had all moved on from the crazy transfer fees of a few years back.

The obvious answer is that the new Sky deal combined with new investment in Premiership football has made the clubs - yet again - feel flush.

Knowing the club interested in a player has lots of cash to spend invariably pushes up the asking price. That's just good business from the point of view of the selling club.

But clubs who wish to take a chance on the likes of Chopra or Koumas should be holding firm for the £1.5 - 2million that these players are really worth.

Surely Premiership football clubs have learnt the lessons of the past by now? But the inflated transfer fees of this summer suggest that, no, they haven't.

It's a ridiculous and unsustainable state of affairs and will, ultimately, only cause financial problems for Premiership clubs that really can't afford it.

Wanna take bets on who the next Leeds United will be ?

English Transfer Fees Are Out of Proportion

As you'll probably be aware, Thierry Henry is leaving Arsenal for Barcelona for £16million.

You may also know that Tottenham have tied up a deal for Charlton striker Darren Bent, for, it is believed £16million.

Yup, Henry and Darren Bent are, apparently, worth the same amount of money. I don't know about you, but this seems more than a little strange to me.

OK, I'm aware that Henry is 29 and Bent is 23 or 24, but the simple fact is that Henry has scored 174 goals in 254 appearances for Arsenal, has won a World Cup with France, a European Championship, the Premiership, the FA, etc. etc.

Darren Bent (who I think is a good Premiership player, don't get me wrong) has scored 32 goals in 69 games for Charlton Athletic, has won nothing and played one UEFA Cup match 6 years ago.

In what parallel universe are these players worth the same amount of money? Surely Premiership football clubs can see that there is something wrong here? It must be obvious to all but, well, the agents, that transfer fees commanded by English players are out of proportion with their real value of that player.

Look at Watford's Ashley Young. Half a good season in the Premiership and suddenly he's worth £9million to Aston Villa. Then there's Nigel Reo-Coker, who West Ham have suddenly decided is worth £12million?

This is madness and clubs have to stop paying these inflated transfer fees. Only then will there be a real incentive for English Premiership football clubs to invest in homegrown talent.