Is Bent really worth more than Henry?
Over the past week many Arsenal fans have been shocked to hear that their ‘greatest ever’ was sold for the ‘miserable’ fee of £16.1m. Meanwhile the rest of England was equally shocked to hear that former Charlton striker Darren Bent commanded a higher transfer fee (£16.5m) than the Arsenal legend.
And although it is obvious that Tottenham have been ripped off by Charlton, it might not be as outrageous as many people think that Darren Bent cost more than Thierry Henry. In truth there are many factors that might just make Bent a more valuable player than Henry.
First off, and one of the biggest factors in Bent’s ‘outrageous’ transfer fee, is his age. At 23, there is still a possibility that he will improve and become a top Premiership striker. And even if he will not become the kind of player that will instill fear in any defender he faces, his peak years are still ahead of him. Thus his potential re-sale value seems to be a respectable one. By contrast, Henry, at 30 years of age has already reached and passed the peak of his career. What he seems to posses more than anything now is experience and it is unlikely that, should he decide to leave Barcelona before the end of his contract, any club will pay anything near the £16m transfer fee he commands these days.
Then there is the additional issue of wages. According to Galliani, Henry asked for a whopping €200.000/week net - after tax - salary to join Milan (it is expected that Barcelona offered a similar salary); according to The Guardian, Darren Bent will earn less than half of that before tax. Given the difference between the two players’ wages it becomes easy to see that Barcelona have paid more than Tottenham in acquiring their man. If both reports are to be believed than simple math tells us that by the end of the season Barcelona will have dished out nearly €40m on Henry, while Tottenham will have spent almost €27m on Bent.
Next off, Henry’s value will have been affected by the fact that he has played in the same league, under the same manager and at the same team for the past eight years. Not very inspiring given that he never really performed anywhere other than at Arsenal. Suddenly changing his style of play from being the man the team was moulded around to being forced to mould around another superstar, or two, might affect his game greatly. Add the fact that he has changed leagues and coach for the first time in eight years, Henry might have a very difficult season ahead of him. However Bent will not be worried about changing leagues or as a matter of fact, his manager (four times during his two years at Charlton he has been introduced to a new coach).
There is one more department where Bent beats Henry, and a crucial department at that: fitness. Despite Darren Bent have been out of action for almost three months earlier this season, it was more or less the only major injury he has had to deal with since he joined Charlton in 2005. Since 2005, Henry has struggled with several injuries and this season more than ever in his career. As a result Henry will be nowhere near match-fit at the start of the new season, having only played in 17 games this season (ironically only one less than new teammate Samuel Eto’o).
In Henry’s favour, for a change, he has demonstrated consistently over the past eight years that he is a truly magnificent player blessed with tons of talent. In his Arsenal career he has made 364 appearances and scored 226 times, while making 82 assists. Now that is as good a goal-to-game ratio as anyone’s, and much better that Darren Bent’s good ratio of 31 goals in 68 Charlton appearances. He also seems to be a player with a good character and plenty of experience, both of which Rijkaard seems to value greatly.
It is expected that those who wish to defend Barcelona’s acquisition of the French striker, will point to the precedent set by Larsson, who also arrived at the Nou Camp after a career at Celtic similar to that of Henry at Arsenal. However in light of the comparison above, I think that Darren Bent purchase was the better bit of business deal. And since many would agree that Tottenham spent too much for their new striker, it can be argued that Barcelona paid too much for Henry. And remember what their offer was last year!
- Which English player is worth 17m or more?
- Did Tottenham and Liverpool over-pay for Bent and Torres?
- Pulling a Rivaldo?
- Arsenal struggling with injuries but Charlton should be an easy 3 points
- Should Henry leave Arsenal next summer?
Discussion - 31 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
Stopped reading that the minute you said ,”In truth there are many factors that might just make Bent a more valuable player than Henry.”
Dont. Be. Silly.
That’s crazy henry is a legend with years ahead of him still bent is a over rated player Charlton will be pooring out the bubbly and laughing at Spurs for paying £16.5 million!
Crazy!
Come on Bent better than Henry … U got to be kidding …
Despite his injury he is one striker any team would like to have …..
Bent being over priced can only be known after seeing what value he adds to Tottenham …
It was Henry who was underpriced by surely another 4-6 Mill …
Bob, Ash u may say Andrei is carzy but this article does make qiute a bit of sense. Though i still do think herny is worth more than Bent and shoud have been sold at atleat 20 million pounds.But i must say this article is really worth reading.Hats of to u Andrei for writing such a an amazing article.
Bob, if you didn’t read his arguement you disqualified yourself from opposing it. I find it truly saddening that when someone presents a reasonable arguement someone could be so discoutious. I can only assume that your comprehension skills are so low that you already know that after reading his post you still wouldn’t understand his arguement.
ps - I only fault the post on a couple of issues that seemed to have been missed. Firstly a players value is affected by his marketability from a merchandising point of view, and secondly there is also the factor on how likely the player is to improve the overall income of the club due to the club getting better results.
Phobos, I DID read it, my response was merely in jest, not to cause offence.Next time you decide to write a personal attack on me, may I suggest you buy a dictionary so I may be able to understand your arguement (sic).
If Bent is more valuable than Henry, then my aunty is my uncle…
[Bob]
Oh come on Bob! Clearly your jest didn’t come through. And it’s not entirely your fault. It usually doesn’t come through (in written communication) unless you use certain established modes of sarcasm. (Try using smileys. They almost always convey jest.) Anyway, that’s a bit too much semantics from me.
Getting back to the football…
[Andrei]
Well reasoned out article mate, although I might have expected a little more than the 16 million pounds Arsenal got for him. And Bent seems a bit overpriced by at least a couple million.
Forget FITNESS, forget the AGE, forget the fact that HENRY HAS ONLY EVER DONE WELL AT ARSENAL… Darren Bent will NEVER.. ‘NEVER’ be in the same league as Henry. Yes he did score more goals than him but thats due to the fact that Henry was out for the majority of the season. Bent is not worth more than Henry. It just goes to show the stupid amaount of monies in the industry these days.
Good on Charlton.. a cool 16 Mill in the pocket whilst sorry Spurs have been robbed.
henry is worth 100m hes a legend but his realistic price is 50m and casue of his age he went 4 16 and bent is not as gd as henry neva will be casue now hes a spud henrys irreplacable but we have to replace him with either tevez torres or hunterlaar
someone mentioned marketability and continuing on that theme using an example - wonder how many more ‘henry’ jerseys will be sold compared to jerseys with ‘bent’ on the back … hundreds and thousands more would be my safe bet…
While Henry’s 16 mil tag can be justified by age, fitness etc, I just cant see reason in quoting (and buying) Bent at a higher price … but then again martin jol aint a fool
I think Bent will become a good signing for Spurs, however I just cant see how they can be compared?
tat is for sure bent cant compare wit henry…henry is a great and world class player and bent jz a bit famous in british…but we cant look down upon to bent,who can predict maybe bent will be second henry one day later(although now cant c sumthing interesting from him)most important is now settle in the new team and dont cause trouble for the team….and tat is for sure bent is over-price>
Before people complain about how arsenal got 16m for Henry, look at how Man U got 11m for van nistelrooy.
If you look at whether Darren Bent is worth more then Henry, you can view it in two different ways- the short term or the long term.
In the short term Henry without a doubt when fit is one of the greatest strikers in the world. Even when he is not scoring he is creating and his presence alone lifts the whole team.
Darren Bent meanwhile although he played well for Charlton he has not really proved himself at the top level. you do have to consider though, if Darren Bent was playing so well with average teammates, imagine how he could play if he had strong players around him.
Long Term Thierry Henry is 29 nearing 30 years old and will probably only have 3-5 good years left in him.
Darren Bent is only 23 and has the potential to be a brilliant player. He has the pace and finishing skills to worry defences and as he ages he will get the experience necessary to become a world class player.
No matter which way you look at it, this is a hard choice between these 2 players. Only time will tell if Darren Bent is worth more then Thierry Henry
English players r far too expensive and over rated…..
Oh ya and Henry IS a class player, unlike Bent, but the way things are going fo Henry it is going to be the other way around in a few years time. I think Jol is a bit like Wenger: doesn’t really make mistakes in the transfer market.
I think isnt worth more than henry. bent however will have a good sell on value in the next 5 yrs while henry wont.
Being a Man u supporter I absolutely hate Arsenal and Henry. That said, I have a great deal of respect for them as well as Wenger. OUCH! Saying that really hurt, but it’s true. So let me put this as simply as I can. Darren Bent is not fit to carry Thierry Henry’s jockstrap around after a long match. Comparing him to the great Frenchman is like comparing Manchester United to Doncaster Rovers. Bent is a decent player but he is still only a MUPPETT in comparison. Arsenal should be elated that they weren’t stupid enough to pay some outrageous amount for a CLASS B talent. Martin Jol it seems is a little “Bent”. Arsenal are also a little “Bent” for giving Henry away to a team with very deep pockets. Why knuckle under to their pressure like that? He is under contract to Arsenal for another 3 years. If Barca wanted him so bad, make the asking price 25 or 30 million.
I personally think they let him go cheaply because his heart was not with Arseanl anymore and you don’t need that kind of negative vibe infecting the team. Finally, whatever Bent is paying his agent, he should double it for a job well done.
To Arsenalfan. Youll have to take off torres from the list because he’s goin to LFC. Bent is average he will never be Henry, never! Bent is just an overhyped, overpriced,underachieving piece of spurs trash!
Great article! Just a few thoughts to add. It is true about Henry’s heart not being in it anymore & i think people don’t attach enough importance to the psychological impact players have on their teammates, ESPECIALLY one like Henry. I like Henry. I like his style, his class & he has been a tremendous success at Arsenal. But his attitude of late has been borne out of frustration in not winning the CL. I think in the early years you could see signs of his petulance & it has become worse of late. That sort of thing really affects the team negatively, especially one like Arsenal with so many young players who may or may not look to Henry for guidance, which he may or may not give.
I think Wenger has noticed these crucial inconsistencies in Henry’s behaviour & decided it was best he leave IF he wanted to, & Henry jumped at the chance to play at Barca & probably (finally) win a European Club medal. So i think that the price of £16 mill looks decent on the outset, IF you look at the set of circumstances that i’ve just mentioned in addition the ones in the article above. Maybe Wenger could have pushed for more, but who knows what could have happened during negotiations? Henry was originally bought for £10.5 mill remember? And he had 8 wonderful years at Arsenal. So selling him for a £6 mill profit seems reasonable to me after all that.
I would like to know if you had adjusted these figures for inflation & changes in the transfer market economics these past 8 years? The reason being i’d like to compare Bent’s orginal fee with Henry’s original fee & make it into an equivalent value which we can all understand better. Then whenever Bent is sold (IF he is ever sold) we can calculate if it was worth it for the Spurs. He could very well turn out to be THEIR Henry!
Wait a minute. Just because Henry is a legend doesn’t automatically mean he’s worth more. The value comes down to how he is playing NOW and what the expectations are in the future.
Having said that, I think Henry will do very well in La Liga. But with his chronic sciatica, how long will he last? Can he play a full season? Can he play 3 seasons? 4? That to me is the risk that caused the fee to be lower than the legendary status might suggest.
Conversely, Bent is nothing but upside at this point. He did well on a poor team. He will do better with Spurs. A few years from now, 16.5 might look cheap.
When will people realise that you are never gonna get a player knocking on 30yrs old for £20+ million?? Why don’t the gooners be happy they got something for him instead of nothing.
no brainer, although henry is on the wrong side of twenty five he still has the ability to score twenty plus goals a season, where as, bent was a big fish in a small pound at chalton and we’ll see how comes up against berbatov, keane and defoe who are real class
How can arsenal sell Henry For 16 mil while Milan sold Sheva for 31 mil almost double?
Bent is obviously more value able than Henry at the momment. He is 23 and a proven goal scorer on the way up. Henry is 30, a proven goal score on the way done. Duh!.
Well … all i can say is … after reading this article … it is Henry who is over priced not Bent …
Henry has at most … 3 or 4 good years of football ahead of him … while Bent … another 10-11 years of good football ??? Taking the ratio of years of football : transfer money … Henry is the one overated.
The fact that Henry is a legend only compensates the fact that the 3-4 years of football left in him are past his prime … while Bent’s next 2-6 years are in his prime.
people lyk Sameer Kassam talk rubbish to be honest.. nobody can say whether or not a player is going to be good in the future or not. I have to admit i believe the price of Bent to be a tad over the mark, bt considering we are only going to be paying him 45k a week, it evens it owt a bit and softens the blow. Also, considering we sold Carrick for a whopping 18.6m then the cost of Bent is slightly more understandable.. he is only 23 and has years left in him, who knows, he might become the next Henry? also, i agree with NYSpursFan in the sense that just because someone is a legend doesnt mean they are worth a lot of money.. for example, Ronaldo left Real Madrid for very cheap, he is a legend, that doesnt mean he is going to cost someone hundreds of millions to buy.. think about it, Henry has a mere 3 or 4 years of good quality football left in him, yes he is a very good player, but how long is it going to be before he tires during the season and dusnt manage to bag as many goals as u wld expect? i believe tht to be quite soon, mayb nt this season to come, bt i believe age will show a bit more the season afta..
Its amazing how all these spuds fans want to justify their judgement by saying bent’s best years are ahead of him. he is showing no flashes of brilliance and never has whereas at that age, henry was tearing defences apart. i for one am glad that spuds bought him because it means yet another 5th or 6th place finish for spuds. you dont expect to challenge for honours with rubbish strikers like bent.
i am willing to bet that in his next 10 years, Bent wont score as many goals as Henry is HIS next 3 years. It it because of this fact that Bent is obviously worth less than half of what Henry is worth. You can take that to the bank spuds fans.
Slimmy definitely agree with the more goals in 3 years thing! Also I bet you henry starts more games next season! (depending on injuries obviously) Also Henry will win more trophies, which I know it’s easy to say but Barcelona won nothing this year.
I think they’ll mess their season up nice n early by playing Bent instead of one of the three strikers that will score them goals.
Bent will score a maximum of 15 goals next season. No better than the strikers they alredy have! Unless spurs are planning on him playing as a cup striker!
What a shame Spurs have paid £16.5m for a second substitute striker!