Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

[SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING]

But what have they both spent on players?

Net spend means **** all and was invented by Rafa to make you lot feel special (which most of you are ).

Go and ask your bank to borrow £1m on your minimum wage as a window licker and you’ll start to get the gist.

 

[saintanton]

Go and ask your bank to borrow £1m on your minimum wage as a window licker and you’ll start to get the gist.

Window-lickers get paid?
Hmmm, job opportunity there...

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Your last sentence is the most pertinent one for me. We now see a relegated side demanding a huge fee for a young player with one season of real experience behind him passed off as "normal market value".
We see fans demanding that we pay such fees and wages to satisfy their need for instant gratification without any concerns for where this trend is leading.
"It'll be fine."
Unfortunately there are now generations of fans with no experience of a time when footballers weren't overpaid and pampered superstars, but just your mate who was better at footie than you. I don't think anyone wants to take things back that far, but it's gone way too far the other way.

the same happened in nba they had to eventually cap salaries.

football has survived just about everything from recession to covid without missing a beat. there has to be a limit to where the bubble can keep inflating to.

we have sky talking up the biggest prize in football annually. yet in reality Luton just got 1 players transfer fee.

that's it now. they can build their new stadium and go back to championship ro below or they can waste it all on a few half hearted players who won't care one jot what happens after they get paid.

BTW caicedo to cheslea to happen v v soon. not playing last preseason game

 

[Mark Blow]

It's not monopoly where money magically appears unless you have oil/dirty money.

Money is yours and mine or the average fans being thrown about.

The reality is most clubs in the prem live on 150 to 200million of our money.

So to talk about spending 200mil just like that is feeding into this bubble of stupidity. It's more than most clubs can legitimately make in a year.

It's the same as fans of certain clubs latching onto amortisation to excuse their clubs massive over spends. "Oh we can amortised it, no issue ain't we clever", what they really mean is rampant over spend is fine

Net spend is merely cash flow. Some money comes in, some then goes out. If more goes out than comes in you make a loss and someone has to make it up.

Ffp is about club stability as 1% of clubs can be funded to any level of loss but the trickle down effect of everyone demanding 50mil a player means a large amount of clubs take more and more risk to survive, either in fees or wages.

Eventually fans excuse the spend and normalise it, and suddenly the bubble eventually bursts somewhere

tte criticism FSG are getting is they appear to be more interested in net spend and balancing the books than doing what is required to make the team competitive enough to challenge for the title. We still need another midfielder especially with fab going. Apparently we want Lavia but don’t want to spend want Southampton want for him, which is fair enough. however when you look at the ages of the players they should last a good 5 years + together so next year we need a defender instead of a midfielder and a defender if we don’t buy another before the transfer period ends. I do wonder sometimes if FSG are that foreword thinking.

I’m not asking them to be stupid like that clown at Chelsea.

 

[saintanton]

the same happened in nba they had to eventually cap salaries.

football has survived just about everything from recession to covid without missing a beat. there has to be a limit to where the bubble can keep inflating to.

we have sky talking up the biggest prize in football annually. yet in reality Luton just got 1 players transfer fee.

that's it now. they can build their new stadium and go back to championship ro below or they can waste it all on a few half hearted players who won't care one jot what happens after they get paid.

BTW caicedo to cheslea to happen v v soon. not playing last preseason game

Football is a microcosm of humanity in general.
The rich minority make themselves ever richer and the rest try to survive as best they can.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

tte criticism FSG are getting is they appear to be more interested in net spend and balancing the books than doing what is required to make the team competitive enough to challenge for the title. We still need another midfielder especially with fab going. Apparently we want Lavia but don’t want to spend want Southampton want for him, which is fair enough. however when you look at the ages of the players they should last a good 5 years + together so next year we need a defender instead of a midfielder and a defender if we don’t buy another before the transfer period ends. I do wonder sometimes if FSG are that foreword thinking.

I’m not asking them to be stupid like that clown at Chelsea.

doing what's required?

we all know we are on our own, out of our vast resources (3× a lot of clubs)

what do you want fsg to do?

there's two possibilities

1. run up vast debts to fund these transfers on our books

2. sell us to sportswashers.

in reality the only way 1 works is if 2 follows.

we have a set amount of revenue to spend on wages and transfers. some of our rivals are sports washers and some are following no 1 (arsenal)

 

[Libby]

It's not monopoly where money magically appears unless you have oil/dirty money.

Money is yours and mine or the average fans being thrown about.

The reality is most clubs in the prem live on 150 to 200million of our money.

So to talk about spending 200mil just like that is feeding into this bubble of stupidity. It's more than most clubs can legitimately make in a year.

It's the same as fans of certain clubs latching onto amortisation to excuse their clubs massive over spends. "Oh we can amortised it, no issue ain't we clever", what they really mean is rampant over spend is fine

Net spend is merely cash flow. Some money comes in, some then goes out. If more goes out than comes in you make a loss and someone has to make it up.

Ffp is about club stability as 1% of clubs can be funded to any level of loss but the trickle down effect of everyone demanding 50mil a player means a large amount of clubs take more and more risk to survive, either in fees or wages.

Eventually fans excuse the spend and normalise it, and suddenly the bubble eventually bursts somewhere

FFP was never about club stability. Ever.

That was just the official line given. It's main purpose is, and was always, to protect the historically big clubs and prevent any new clubs joining that group.

 

[HugoEkitikeN01]

I think our greatest mistake was not to continue building after winning the league ,
especially building in the midfield area .
We have learnt our lesson in a difficult way.

 

[Mark Blow]

doing what's required?

we all know we are on our own, out of our vast resources (3× a lot of clubs)

what do you want fsg to do?

there's two possibilities

1. run up vast debts to fund these transfers on our books

2. sell us to sportswashers.

in reality the only way 1 works is if 2 follows.

we have a set amount of revenue to spend on wages and transfers. some of our rivals are sports washers and some are following no 1 (arsenal)

I haven’t said that net spend doesn’t matter. But sometimes when the needs require you need to spend more than you may want. We’re in the Europa league this season, not the champions league so revenue from European competition is a lot lower . With Hendo going and now Fab, which was unexpected, we need another midfielder and that is going to cost, but it is necessary. I’m not asking FSG to do a Chelsea but they need to do what’s required this season because they let Fab go, and now need to replace him.

 

[Solid Air]

FFP was never about club stability. Ever.

That was just the official line given. It's main purpose is, and was always, to protect the historically big clubs and prevent any new clubs joining that group.

that argument may have some merit in PL but in EFL it does help keep clubs alive from what i can see .

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

FFP was never about club stability. Ever.

That was just the official line given. It's main purpose is, and was always, to protect the historically big clubs and prevent any new clubs joining that group.

bullshit. but whatever, I can understand the feeling.

this is a lot wider than protecting the precious egos of the select few.

most of the time I'd agree given the type of super league **** they (and we) get up to.

however on this the only accusation that can be made is ffp does not go far enough to reign in the types of things going on round the whole of Europe not just here.

if an owner wants to build a club they have Avenues open to them, wide open. Ryan Reynolds is showing what any owner can do. the lad at Brentford is proving exactly what can be done.

what separates man utd and Southampton is really global revenue. that's it. the "biggness" is no longer locally relevant. utd can seeming spend 100s of millions and shrug while Southampton cannot.

why should that be locked in any more than anything else?

I'd contend that ffp needs to go much further such that it doesn't matter how much money is available. if a team can get 20 good players together they should have a chance. salary caps and transfer caps are the inevitable outcome

and just possibly.. maybe use possibly the fans going weekly get a break form the sky high prices.

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

Don’t understand how anyone can argue that net spend is important.

Clearly if you have a great squad then can spend £200m without losing anyone then you’ve improved your squad and first 11.

However if you have sold 2 of best players for £100m and then spend £150m yea in some circumstances you may improve the team, however you don’t know if those new players will so you may end up making it worse (see spurs when sold bale, or us when sold suarez).

Clearly if you can keep best players and invest then it’s better than selling some and having to replace.

However circumstances need taking into consideration. If you’ve sold load of squad players that don’t play (like chelsea and city have done) then invest that £100m into a first team player than that’s great work and far different than selling a first team player and having to replace.

-
It's Diego. His M.O. is not so much an argument as a persistant close-your-eyes-and-put-your-hands-over-your-eyes Veruca Salt-type fanny fit of making a case until any opposition gets exasperated and walks away. He's only being doing it for on 14 years now, perhaps he'll get tired soon.

 

[Solid Air]

the same happened in nba they had to eventually cap salaries.

football has survived just about everything from recession to covid without missing a beat. there has to be a limit to where the bubble can keep inflating to.

we have sky talking up the biggest prize in football annually. yet in reality Luton just got 1 players transfer fee.

that's it now. they can build their new stadium and go back to championship ro below or they can waste it all on a few half hearted players who won't care one jot what happens after they get paid.

BTW caicedo to cheslea to happen v v soon. not playing last preseason game

oh give over only 2 PL transfers have been for £100m most are for far far less and the vast majority of PL clubs won't spend more than £50m max and for them that would often be on the back of a big transfer out .

 

[Solid Air]

I haven’t said that net spend doesn’t matter. But sometimes when the needs require you need to spend more than you may want. We’re in the Europa league this season, not the champions league so revenue from European competition is a lot lower . With Hendo going and now Fab, which was unexpected, we need another midfielder and that is going to cost, but it is necessary. I’m not asking FSG to do a Chelsea but they need to do what’s required this season because they let Fab go, and now need to replace him.

fully agree
i have been broadly supportive of FSG but if the money isn't there they must allow the club to open a credit line to fund the necessary transfers

 

[Libby]

that argument may have some merit in PL but in EFL it does help keep clubs alive from what i can see .

Tell that to Bury fans.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

oh give over only 2 PL transfers have been for £100m most are for far far less and the vast majority of PL clubs won't spend more than £50m max and for them that would often be on the back of a big transfer out .

hmmmm

so you don't see an upward trend at all then?

cheslea are literally as we speak doing a little back room deal with Brighton to screw caicedo's former club out of some of the sell on fee.

grealish, rice, fernandez are the top of the tree and soon to have caicedo added.

the tier below is rapidly filling with 70mil plus players and just about every player is 40mil plus

 

[Zanjinho]

.

Don't know why you edited, you were 100% spot on with your comment

 

[Libby]

bullshit. but whatever, I can understand the feeling.

this is a lot wider than protecting the precious egos of the select few.

most of the time I'd agree given the type of super league **** they (and we) get up to.

however on this the only accusation that can be made is ffp does not go far enough to reign in the types of things going on round the whole of Europe not just here.

if an owner wants to build a club they have Avenues open to them, wide open. Ryan Reynolds is showing what any owner can do. the lad at Brentford is proving exactly what can be done.

what separates man utd and Southampton is really global revenue. that's it. the "biggness" is no longer locally relevant. utd can seeming spend 100s of millions and shrug while Southampton cannot.

why should that be locked in any more than anything else?

I'd contend that ffp needs to go much further such that it doesn't matter how much money is available. if a team can get 20 good players together they should have a chance. salary caps and transfer caps are the inevitable outcome

and just possibly.. maybe use possibly the fans going weekly get a break form the sky high prices.

Personally I don't agree with it. Although I'd never want Saints to be run that way I don't see why an owner shouldn't be allowed to pump money into a business as long as they're covering the losses (which is what the regulations should be aimed at imo), or why can't a rich fan throw some of their wealth at their club eg Jack Walker.

Can you imagine in any other industry business owners being told they're not allowed to invest their money to try and improve profits and their standing? It's absolute nonsense.

I'd be all for salary caps btw but it'd have to be worldwide and will never happen.

 

[Solid Air]

Tell that to Bury fans.

i said help but it they can only put rules in place to try and stop financial mismanagement but if owners just ignore them it is hardly the Leagues fault .

 

[Solid Air]

Personally I don't agree with it. Although I'd never want Saints to be run that way I don't see why an owner shouldn't be allowed to pump money into a business as long as they're covering the losses (which is what the regulations should be aimed at imo), or why can't a rich fan throw some of their wealth at their club eg Jack Walker.

Can you imagine in any other industry business owners being told they're not allowed to invest their money to try and improve profits and their standing? It's absolute nonsense.

I'd be all for salary caps btw but it'd have to be worldwide and will never happen.

because what happens when the owner pulls the plug and with outgoings exceeding the revenue bankruptcy awaits .
The better known PL clubs have the advantage that normally a buyer would be found easily* but further down the food chain far less likely

*much to the relief of our neighbours