Links with Sergi Roberto of Barca in the last day or so, claims Jose has spoken with him. Quite a versatile player by all accounts, would go against what Jose said about wanting speciality players for each position, not utility players (think he was referring to Daley Blind).
I think in the main it would make more sense for the loan to be at a championship side where the player would have play more games and have more influence on the matches. At WBA or Stoke for example he may be on the bench and come on as a sub whereas at Preston he may start and play a big role. Better be a big fish in a smaller pond, being relied upon.
Depends how much he'd learn at that level, to me he looks better than that level but I'd be all for him having a season under Jaap Stam at the same time. I think he'd get in quite a few Pl sides, the Palace team for example, they won't sign Sakho for £30m.
Real is starting to shop around for Bale and they want £90m. YEAH FKIN RIGHT!!! I would honestly pay no more than £50m for him given you'd be lucky to get 30 games from him in the season. Also, I don't even think we need him at this point.
Nah man, Bale is an excellent player. Genuinely out of the top drawer. I take on board the injury situation as ankle injuries are a bastard but if he is fit he's better than all of our forwards and wouldn't really be detrimental to the development of Rashford. He would be to Lingard but there is an absolute gulf in class between those two, ditto Mkhitaryan. He'd be excellent alongside Lukaku, it's Martial would suffer I guess.
I agree that there's no doubt that Bale is a tremendously talented star. However, based on his showing in Madrid over these last two years, I wouldn't pay more than Madrid payed for him. He is 28 now and with history of injuries. I honestly think his best years were with Tottenham. He perhaps suffers the same problem as Neymar under Messi by living in Ronaldo's shadows, plus he is certainly not as not as Neymar. Either way, if he is that valuable, why is Madrid trying to get rid of him? Logic would dictate that they should not be expecting to make profit on him. 50 - 60m at best!
Best years at Spurs? He's stepped up levels since joining RM. The guy is world class and has scored a ton if goals at RM. He'd have scored more of his team mates weren't afraid of Ronaldo.
Bale's fee should be £80m in my opinion, with £45m up front and the rest based on appearances/minutes played. He'd fit nicely onto our right side, I like the idea of having him in the team but can also see why we'd avoid paying big figures for him.
Here is today's article in Marca outlining the Bale situation - http://www.marca.com/en/football/real-madrid/2017/08/03/59833c8ae5fdeab3418b456c.html
So, if we go on to buy Bale we would ended up spending close £250m in one summer. That in my opinion is completely insane! Just fking spend and spend and spend even more. I don't know, guys, I am certainly not a fan of the new modern style of extremely high spending amounts until you win something.
Depends how you look at it. We needed a new centre forward, we've got one. We needed a new DCM, we've got one. We needed a centre half, we've got one. It's not stockpiling players we don't need, like City. We needed those players. The cost is market rates, what can you do? Admittedly, Bale would be a luxury and isn't needed as such but if he's available, you get him on board.
It's not really the new modern style. Blackburn did it in 1995, and plenty of clubs before them. Back in the 1950s people were complaining about Sunderland's big spending, so it's far from new. Fact is that spending lots of money has always been a strategy used by clubs to try and catch up with, and surpass, more successful rivals. The only difference is the amounts have gotten bigger as the money from broadcasting, sponsorship and tickets have risen so rapidly. Ultimately we can afford to spend that money - we could be reporting profits of around £190m for last season even after all the money LVG and Mourinho spent over the last three years. So the question is do we spend that money on players to compete with the other big spending clubs, or do an Arsenal and keep it in the bank then whinge that we can't beat the clubs who spend more than us? If we decide to sit on all our money like some Scrooge McDuck parody that isn't going to stop all our rivals spending more, and ultimately coming to poach all our players if we choose not to keep up with them.
If we don't buy the best players when they are available - our opponents will and they will become better than us. That is the simple truth of the matter. Like any business, you only succeed in the long term by continually investing the profits and in the club's case - that means new players. Sure, we can continue to develop talent in-house in the academy but the days of relying on 4 or 5 youngsters to come through every three years is long gone. Very few academy players will make the grade so we have to go to the market and buy talent - and we have to pay the going rate. I get frustrated when I look at examples such as the Perisic deal - if we really want the player, are we honestly going to lose out for the sake of £3 or £5m difference between what we have offered and what the club want for the player - it's peanuts in today's money.
Exactly No one wants to squander money but you have to live with the times. Not spending means the extra dosh goes into the GGs pockets. The paradox is that the more United spend the more income they get. The GGs realised that. Buying pogba for a huge fee was not a reckless gamble. It was part of a business model which involved buying high profile players to keep the club in the limelight
I really can't reconcile with anything that has been said about spending without regulations. And that's my point. Regulations... The spending race that we are seeing is mostly done with money not earned. Even in United's case, we still have the hefty debt that just refuses to go down. How can we continue to justify squandering millions year after year but fans keep footing the bill with new shirts and rising ticket prices? Another misconception.. PSG bragged about selling 10k shirts in first hour of revealing Neymar. However, most of that money actually goes into Nike's pocket. It certainly doesn't pay for Neymar's absurd fee. The fact of the matter is that football has become a pointless money race for the rich and that to me takes away from the competitive spirit and essence of the game.
People with a mortgage shouldn't be able to spend on other items and should put all earnings towards debt??
Except if your mortgage never goes down in principal, then you certainly need to reprioritize your spending. Besides, your example is somewhat poor. I'm talking about accountability in sports business. Football is the one place with next to zero accountability. Eventually, the current culture of endless pockets in name of winning one trophy will ruin the game, if it hasn't already done so. But hey, we now live in a easy money cheap credit society, So, I guess that normalizes all the madness.
Remember that for many of us who have been watching football before the premiership came along can recall the time that owning and running a football club wasn't the same as running a business. There was zero consideration of accountability and zero consideration of profit. It was a labour of love. The owners were fans. So this is nothing new. Some clubs like PSG are owned by governments so that it goes beyond football and profitability. When a nation's pride is at stake then the price is multiplied several times. TBF United have resisted paying over the odds. There seems to have been business calculations behind the buys.
