In the past, before the days on players were actually counted, we always saw a significant increase in transfer prices on 17 year old players. This was often referred to as ’sick’ or met with general criticism throughout the community. Since then we’ve had some developments in the game. Players are now ageing in days, meaning that the ’sick’ prices today often comes from 17.0-5 (the 0-5 symbolizing the number of days the player is. E.g. 17.1 is a player that is 17 years and 1 day old) old youth pulls.

In the beginning of this revolutionizing introduction of the days, which not only would have an effect on the transfer market but also training and other factors, the community reacted with a surprisingly (to yours truly at least) positive reaction. It seemed to everyones best knowledge, that this would reduce the sometimes ridiculously high prices for a fresh youth pull. It’s also important to keep in mind that although high prices affect more or less all of the really young players, and always has - this especially goes for solid or excellent youth pulls which are multi-skilled, e.g. a 17.1 excellent playmaker/solid passing type of youth.

To many new managers in Hattrick today, the prices on 17 year old players is somewhat a mystery. Sometimes one might have a bid for a couple of hundered thousands, while others are well above the three million euro line. This is as I mentioned due to the number of days the player in question is. Not only are managers hoping to get a future star for their team, but the younger the player, the higher the skill (and multi-skill) equals higher chances of opening the eyes of the U20 National Team coach as well as the prospect of multi-skill training. As a younger player equals faster training, this means that the possibility of training the player in a number of skills before he’s ‘obsolete’ in the training ground is dramatically increased.

In the past managers that bought these super-youths often argued their case with comments such as “I’ll get the money back when he’s multi-skilled and still young” or “I’ll get the money back with interest when he’s high in one skill and still trainable in another!”, but unfortunately these types of explanations became somewhat shredded when the transfer comparison tool within the game was introduced. Why? you might ask yourself at this point; well, it’s as simple as: when there is no data available, we can’t make rational decisions. Even more simplified, this means that if we’re not sure of what the value of the player is, or if we can’t launch into a full scale investigation or justify the price, we’re more likely not to buy the player.

However, there are of course exceptions. My strategy in buying players nowadays includes a more team than economic approach. It might be due to the fact that I have money to back my decisions, but I’d like to take the “he’s perfect for my team” approach, and then see where the pricetag will land. Plus, managers that have the money to spend, the long-term view of training and backing from scouts of the specific National Team - are of course more likely to spend on super-youths.

So where was I going. After studying the influence from the introduction of days on super-youth prices I have very little data. None which would be representable or even remotely interesting to this discussion, however, common sense tells me a couple of things:

• The distribution between money and where it’s spent within the game have radically changed. In the past managers would spend in the beginning of each season; buying new, young, freshly drawn 17 year old youth prospects for overprices to train. The money to do so would come from selling players at the end of each season. Supply and demand have never been easier explained: the supply of players at the end of each season would explode, causing a drop in transfer prices from week 14 and onwards while the complete opposite (high demand and low supply) would occur during weeks 0-2 of a season. Of course, with players ageing at the same time, this was the most logical thing to do, sell before the age, and buy when the player is as young as possible. Makes sense.

• Today, the distribution is spread out throughout the whole season. A super-youth can be pulled any day and any week of a season, which of course means that managers have to be on their toes and lookout 24/7.

• Prices on 17.0-1 is still utterly ’sick’. With more money in the game in general to fight the previous recession, it’s probably even worse than before.

As I’ve lost the point I was trying to make a long time ago (sorry about that), I’m hoping that this at least will help the people wondering about the super-youth overprices. My apologies also for the term “super-youth(s)”, this is a direct translation of the word “superjunis” used by all of the Swedish managers for these type of players.

Do you think it makes sense to pay above three million euros for a 17 year old? Why? Or perhaps why not?