Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread
- Thread starter Bozz
- 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
-
Real genius is who ever is finding the players that Brighton sign.
Guardiola became City manager in 2016 , won his first title in 2017 and it was only the covid year of 2019-20 when Liverpool won that he has failed to win the league
He’s also had 2 champions league appearances, winning one, and 6 domestic cup wins
How much has that cost in players?
Klopp became manager in 2015 but has only one league title, 2 runners up to.m City by 1pt, 3 champions league appearance with one win and a Europa league final appearance.
How much has that cost in players?
Manchester United have had multiple managers since Klopp arrived and have 3 domestic cups, a Europa league title and a league runners up to city under Mourinho?
How much has that all that cost on players?
City don’t seem to have a problem spending money on players to keep them at the top, eg Haaland last season 35 apps 36 goals.
Neither Liverpool or United have been investigated regarding FFP as far as I’m aware though.
As for FFP let’s not even talk about Chelsea’s spending…
Last edited:
Bad choice mate, he was peanuts for a striker in todays market.
The rest is spot on though
Diego doesn't understand what net spend means and he's determined to demonstrate his klunk-headed ignorance on the subject.
It means **** all more than you have sold assets in order to buy new.
What do you think it means?
Liverpool's transfers for the last 8 seasons have been fundamentally underpinned by selling players - yours have been funded by debt.
Glad to be of service.
Good old "net spend"Liverpool's transfers for the last 8 seasons have been fundamentally underpinned by selling players - yours have been funded by debt.
Glad to be of service.
Nail on head.
You broke two records for keeper and center half and won the lot since so a very good decision.
People who go on about "net spend" are just trying to gain some kind of superiority and is only ever mentioned on this board (trust me i travel them all).
- May 22, 2011
- 73,755
- 25,682
- 113
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.
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 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
Lots of grumbling across the pond about FSG under investment in the Red Sox, settling for a middle tier attitude and underdog status.
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.