Many many deals will go to the wire.. tis the problem with 'windows' look at the prices come the last day of the month..
Yeah, he meant to say "wanted to" instead of "had to", but he didn't say that because that would make me right.
Errrr no. I said exactly what I meant to say. I said "had to" because they "had to" pay that amount if they wanted him. What is so hard to understand about that?
It's hard, nay impossible, to understand, because you said they didn't have to in the same sentence.
Which bring me back to my original point, that they wanted him badly enough to pay £35m for him, and therefore, to them, he was worth that much money. It's their problem and no one else's that it was obviously a mental decision, and that they didn't make the far more sane decision of buying someone else for far less. It has nothing to do with prices being inflated. In fact, it's impossible for players to have inflated prices, because they don't have market values. They are worth whatever a buying team is willing to pay.
The fact that you didn´t understand the first, nor the second time, shows that in fact, it was/is hard for you to understand.
...All I´m saying is that clubs have to spend over the odds on players in the premier league as practically every team is financially sound and has no need to sell. I would think that is pretty obvious but for some reason you don't think it is.

Is Carroll 35 times better than Lambert?
Is it just me that thinks Joe and Alan are basically agreeing with each other? You have to pay a lot of money to buy Premier League players, that's because clubs choose to pay that amount rightly or wrongly, most teams have enough money that they don't need to sell their first team players.![]()
Well no, there is a difference in our opinions. Alan is arguing that clubs are having to pay more for players than they're actually worth, and I'm arguing that they're not actually "worth" anything, other than what the highest bidder values them at.
They have values on Football Manager soooooo.....
Well no, there is a difference in our opinions. Alan is arguing that clubs are having to pay more for players than they're actually worth, and I'm arguing that they're not actually "worth" anything, other than what the highest bidder values them at.
Okay, let's get off the semantics and poorly-structured sentences.
Where we agree is that the fee paid by Liverpool on Carroll was a ridiculous amount to pay for a player who is just not that good. What I'm trying to get across to you is that they wouldn't have paid the amount if they didn't think it was worth it. They may have desperately wanted him, but there had to be somewhere they would draw the line and say "right, that's too much, we're not paying that". They paid £35m thinking that he would score enough goals to justify that amount. If they hadn't thought that, they simply wouldn't have bought him.
I predict that next summer we'll be fighting off bids for JWP and Shaw with a sh*tty stick.
I was on your side (believe it or not) but to imply that nothing has any inherent value strikes me as wrong. Surely the club puts a value on them without someone having to bid? Lambert is valuable to us, but that doesn't mean anyone else values him, for example.
Depending on what you read, we already are...