Summer Transfers 2012
- Thread starter Master Yoda
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
But saint in todays world the likes of City and Chelsea are paying their top stars double (and more than that in some cases) what we are paying Joe Cole. Now I doubt anybody believes or expects us to match those figures but whilst we are sill paying the likes of Joe Cole and Aquilani a combined amount of approx. £150 000 a week are we saying we cant even offer a bright young prospect a third of that? That to me seems like crazy logic. Making mistakes on previous players shouldnt be used as an excuse for us to just sign no one in the future just because it "might turn out to be a mistake". Sign the right players, pay them the going rate and let BR do the rest.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,753
- 25,680
- 113
But we still have both players so are still paying their salaries. If we keep signing players for more money then they are worth then pay them more than they are worth, not only is that crazy logic, but it also means when coming to sell them it makes it more difficult as you wan't to at least get your money back / try and make a profit on transfer fee, plus find a club that is willing to match / beat their salary expectations.
With FFP comin in as well, being shrewd in the tranfer market and sensible with wages is going to be even more important.
IT was in the paper this morning. An article with utd,city, arsenal,spurs, Chelsea and us. Players we've bid for and the likelyhood of each club getting their targets. It was the first I've heard of it Tbh. But we can dream
Yeah but then a smart move would be to offload those players, no? We can't keep them around as evidence against signing anyone new.
In fact 60k would be a smart move in terms of FFP.
Imagine offloading those two for cheap, paying Siggy his demands, leaving us with 90k for new player wages. Who could we get? We've also trimmed them on Aurelio/Kuyt so not to spend 60k is preposterous.
I'm only hoping he was asking for a solid gold rolls Royce or something and that this isn't true. It would be a poor long term investment on the clubs part.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
This argument irritates me. Fair enough, Man City have splashed the cash to attract players, but they were also showing a hell of a lot of ambition to win things including the Premier League and Champions League. Would you expect a player to turn down that opportunity? The wages are a bonus. Obviously, with some players the trophies would be the bonus but IMO, you can't call a player a mercenary because he joined Man City
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
That sounds a little Football Managerish to me...
Seriously though, Aquilani, Cole, Aurelio and Kuyt going should free up over £300k per week (£15.6m per annum)...
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
There is a list (doesn't seem to be up to date though) as part of this original thread that must have near on thirty players on it already...
Sorry, Billy- but I feel an attack of the sensibles coming on again.
I've been banging my head against a brick wall over this for ages now. We simply cannot compete with City and Chelsea's spending power, and no amount of desire to succeed can alter that fact. If you see an old schoolmate of yours win the lottery and start living the life of a millionaire you might be envious, but you can't bankrupt yourself in an attempt to keep up.
We need FIFA rules to bring the mega-rich clubs down to a level where others can compete, not for the rest to sell their gonads in a futile attempt to match them.
The mega-rich owners have distorted the market because they can out-muscle everyone else to buy success, the rest of us have to try other methods to beat them. The going rate is only that because they are able to dictate it.
It may be crazy to pay Aqua and Cole what we are, but we're only compounding the error if we try to match that for others. The fact is we only have the media's version of Gylfi's requirements, so I'm content to let the management decide if he's worth it.
Don't get me wrong, I share your passion to see LFC back at the top again, but I also want to see the club run on a sound financial basis and not live beyond its means, until some level of sanity is restored to the financial side of the game.
This argument irritates me. Fair enough, Man City have splashed the cash to attract players, but they were also showing a hell of a lot of ambition to win things including the Premier League and Champions League. Would you expect a player to turn down that opportunity? The wages are a bonus. Obviously, with some players the trophies would be the bonus but IMO, you can't call a player a mercenary because he joined Man City
Sorry mate but that argument irritates me
are you suggesting Citys players will run for the hills if they don't win The Prem this year? Or will they happily stay at earn their 250 grand a week for the year after, or the year after that? My money would be on...er...the money.If we say to prospective players "hey lads our ambition is to win the league this year" will the top players come flooding to our Gates? I'm afraid that (IMO) that will attract not one single player if we aren't paying them. Not one single Reds fan I know expects us to match or even come close to what City or Chelsea will throw at them. However if we can't come close to matching what the next tier of clubs down (financially speaking) are offering then we have issues.
These are all ifs and buts and for all I know we may well be able to match these clubs and I hope we can. As I've said before we'll all be happy if that is the case. If it isn't the case we'll have a harder job on our hands to break into the top 4. Impossible? No. A bloody big handicap? Yes.
Ps...I actually called all footballers mercenaries not just the ones who joined City
the question I asked was "would players like Aguero and Silva have joined a club like City before they were loaded?" If you feel they would have then fair enough but my own opinion is they would have gone to different clubs who had ambitions to win titles AND a lot more cash to offer.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Sorry mate but that argument irritates me
If we say to prospective players "hey lads our ambition is to win the league this year" will the top players come flooding to our Gates? I'm afraid that (IMO) that will attract not one single player if we aren't paying them. Not one single Reds fan I know expects us to match or even come close to what City or Chelsea will throw at them. However if we can't come close to matching what the next tier of clubs down (financially speaking) are offering then we have issues.
These are all ifs and buts and for all I know we may well be able to match these clubs and I hope we can. As I've said before we'll all be happy if that is the case. If it isn't the case we'll have a harder job on our hands to break into the top 4. Impossible? No. A bloody big handicap? Yes.
Ps...I actually called all footballers mercenaries not just the ones who joined City
I wasn't saying they would've joined if the money wasn't there, of course they wouldn't. However, What I am saying is, would they have joined Man City had the opportunity to win things not been there...? In other words, they are joining for both reasons, not just money. I am sure this doesn't apply to all their players though
Edit: if you work for company A (a medium sized national organisation) but company B (a large international organisation) come along and offer you more money, do you stay put? Or do you move to progress your career whilst getting more money too?
To be honest, I don't care what others clubs are paying players. I want us to do what is best for us. If we do not think a player is worth X, then don't pay it. If a player wants to play for us and is willing to take Y, fantastic. I'd rather the club be run financially stable than throw money at trying to over achieve
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
makes me laugh everyone saying the new owners have not spent any money, neither has anyone else
They splashed a bit of cash around last year, even if most of it was the Torres money.
They are even getting slagged off for taking there time to consider the best option for the new stadium
PATIENCE.
Didn't they spend that (along with the Babel cash) on Suarez and Carroll...?
We sold a few fringe players last summer but most of the outlay was surely investment...?
To be Fair saint at no point have I ever suggested or expected that we compete at a level like City or Chelsea. We can't and you're right that we shouldn't even try to. I also agree that we have no clue what the situation is with this or any other transfer. All my posts are thus written as hypothetical situations (in the main).
Would I have a problem if we signed 8 free transfers and they turned out to be absolute class? Not at all in fact it would make things even sweeter.
I don't expect the owners to go gung-ho and bankrupt the club but I expect us to at least be able to compete with those clubs around us who are already operating under a fairly strict financial structure themselves (and Spurs are an example of one such club). If we can't then surely that begs the question "why not?". And if we can then we have a better chance of competing with those teams around us. Fingers crossed its the latter
I personally think our net spend last summer/year was relatively healthy. Anything above £20m is a big investment if you're not Chelsea or Man City so I don't know what the big fuss is about. The only thing wrong with that net spend was that it went mostly on average players with little return on the pitch, which you can't blame entirely on the owners. I mean £20m on Downing was bad enough, but who actually thought he would get 0 assists after a fairly good season at Villa.
My biggest concern is that the owners confidence with injecting money into the squad has taken a blow because of this.
My biggest concern is that the owners confidence with injecting money into the squad has taken a blow because of this.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
The thing is, the Downing deal isn't the worst since the owners took over IMO. Although he does seem to be coming good of late, the £35m we paid for Andy Carroll was insane!
On the plus side, they should be boosted by the Suarez, Bellamy and Enrique signings too
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Never going to happen. £30m is the absolute tops and I don't think it will be that much. hope you're right though pal