I think it's gone worse every year but this year is madness. £50m for VVD was insane but to increase that to 60-70 is madness. I don't like the "it's just the way the market is" argument. Arsenal managed to sign Lacazette for £45m. Hernandez has a £13m release clause. Even we managed to sign Salah with really good stats for £30m initial fee. These are the going rates and to simply jump on the bandwagon is dangerous. It's such a short term way to look at it. If we sign Keita for £60m and VVD for £60m, what does that mean for future transfers? If you were the director of a team and Liverpool take an interest in your player, you'd seek to extort them. To address the "why are fans concerned about transfer fees argument" - it impacts our budget and future signing of other players which can give our squad depth and a chance to compete.
Thing is, it is a lot of money but this guy is seriously special and if we don't get him now, then we never will because his stock will rise even further. I know I rave a lot about players but this is serious - It's very rare to see a midfielder tick pretty much every single box - he's not a jack of all trades, he's literally top class in every aspect. His only weakness is aerial duels. He's only 22 and can play anywhere in central midfield. He was arguably one of the best CM's in world football last season. He didn't get anywhere enough credit because he's at Leipzig. But he was a massive part in getting them CL football for next season.
But we made a profit in the last window and didn't spend anything in January - maybe that was with the view of spending big this summer ...
Keita was the main reason RB Pegleg came second from being promoted the year before. Without him they wouldn't have got close (so they say). So maybe he won't win games single-handedly but over the season he'd make a huge difference in my opinion. We have players like Mane and Coutinho to win us games single-handedly. Still a lot of money though.
Like with VVD the fee reflects the length of contract with Sigurdsson. Would be cheaper to just keep Barkley than pay £40m plus £100k a week for a player who failed at Spurs
The reason why fees have come in this high is because TV money has come in and made everything higher. If a club now has 100m to spend instead of 60m to spend, they are going to want to spend 100m. Not just that, but chinese and american and arab millionaires are taking over many club and want to flex their financial muscle. Also with outrageous transfer fees for their top players then these clubs who have made a lot of money can then splash the dosh too. Thats why everything has become inflated. Moreno, Markovic, Borini, Allen, Lovren, benteke you all overspent on and they have all flopped. However cause of the way the market has headed, you are actually not incurring any losses (or significant ones) so its worked in your favour!
Except siggurdson is a game changer at Swansea and literally kept them up by himself. At the very least you know he would improve your set pieces and he would work hard (judging by how he plays so far). Barkley on the other hand is more miss than hit, hasn't progressed at all which i don't find surprising and for me doesn't offer much in your team. He doesn't even do work rate anymore
Liverpool's Naby Keita blow as RB Leipzig declare they 'will definitely not let any key players go' Bundesliga side reiterate stance as transfer saga continues - but further talks expected
Unless it doesn't. If owners say you can go spend that on those players and won't impact on future transfers then what's the issue? So long we've penny pinched and lost out over a few million, be nice to just get job done and pay up. Now not saying should be held to ransom but what's £5m to Prem clubs nowadays? Getting those players should also help attract better players in future windows.
Manchester United are set to spend big after agreeing a sensational £75million move for Everton striker Romelu Lukaku
He is a LeTissier, big fish in a small pond. Hard work is not something we need with Schneiderlin and Gueye, we have Baines for FK's.
Take Kante. Didn't and won't ever win a game singlehandedly, but helped transform Leicester and Chelsea into title winnings sides by being as good as 2 men in there. How much would someone pay for him now? £70m?
Baines is no where near as good as Sigi. Le Tissier could come up with loads of wonder goals and passes. Barkley rarely pulls them off nowadays i'm afraid. Whether it's because he bought into the hype or because he's just not good enough to be consistently good. He will never be a top 6 player. Sigi is and can be
considering the amount we have spunked on transfers since FSG took over that seems a bit harsh. If we are awash with money why haven't the accounts shown this plus so much of the increase is just flowing straight into players and agents pockets. We already have a net spend of £35m+ this window so i'm not convinced we do have much more than £20-£30m net left to spend in this window.
He took the step to Spurs and flopped. At the quoted £40m he doesn't bring enough to the table. His FK's are nothing better than Baines.....trust me
He barely started for Spurs and not in his position but overall yes, his impact wasn't enough (whose was under AVB exact bale?). I agree 40m is too much for him though. However he far better than Barkley which was your original argument . As for Baines free kicks, maybe in the past but considering Barkley, Mirallas, Lukaku are all taking frees and corners before Baines a lot then Baine's cant be that great anymore. Sigis are far better shown by how many chances swansea get from set pieces.
Something our lot could do with improving. Making the most from set pieces, pretty dire for the most part in seasons gone by. Corners were as good as setting up other team for counter or giving them a goal kick
