Transfer discussion thread

[Established1870]

He's had one above average season, a season where RM arguably had their greatest ever season in their history (winning the league and CL).

 

[Established1870]

Yep. We aren't ruining football in this instance.

When did Chelsea ever really ruin football? I've never worked this one out.

 

[Sub_Zero]

Lukaku is the best striker in the world.

Lol

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[go you pups]

Morata's team also didn't get relegated to the championship and desperately need the money. Madrid didn't need to sell him so could demand a higher price.

There is no possible scenario where you can argue that Sissoko for 30m was better value for money than Morata for 58 imo.

Hilarious your dismissiveness/anti-Spurs bias here.

Sissoko was good enough to play for France and play well for them even when relegated as a player, that inflated his value somewhat. We all can't be hindsight heroes champ.

Yep we probably overpaid by about 7.5-10m for him, 10m is **** all compared to 23-35m which imo Chelsea are currently doing. Anyone want to dig the heels in at Bournemouth for paying 15m for Ibe? Don't think so........

Morata is not a 58-70m worthy player, Man Utd did the right thing not bothering in the end.

I think Morata while he wont be as prolific as Costa he'll be better suited to our system with the style of striker he is. His link up play and touch on the ball is better imo.

Historically under Roman you have always played your best football with physical beasts leading the line like Drogba and Costa. I don't see Morata fitting this bill, he has the height for it but not sure on his aggressiveness/strength.

 

[Latro]

Hilarious your dismissiveness/anti-Spurs bias here.

Sissoko was good enough to play for France and play well for them even when relegated as a player, that inflated his value somewhat. We all can't be hindsight heroes champ.

Yep we probably overpaid by about 7.5-10m for him, 10m is **** all compared to 23-35m which imo Chelsea are currently doing. Anyone want to dig the heels in at Bournemouth for paying 15m for Ibe? Don't think so........

Morata is not a 58-70m worthy player, Man Utd did the right thing not bothering in the end.

Historically under Roman you have always played your best football with physical beasts leading the line like Drogba and Costa. I don't see Morata fitting this bill, he has the height for it but not sure on his aggressiveness/strength.

He was awful at club football tho.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Yep we probably overpaid by about 7.5-10m for him, 10m is **** all compared to 23-35m which imo Chelsea are currently doing. Anyone want to dig the heels in at Bournemouth for paying 15m for Ibe? Don't think so........

Sissoko was a 20m player that you paid 30m for, Morata is a 40m player they've paid 60m for. Both are 1.5 times the players value, so why is it that Chelsea are the ones inflating the market and not Spurs?

Lukaku is prob a 50m player that cost 75m, Lacazette is prob a 35m player that cost 50m, you just flogged off a 27yo fullback that your own fans think is worse than his backup for 50m, no one is innocent in the inflated state of the transfer market if they are overpaying for players or fleecing other clubs ridiculous fees for their own.

And I'd dig in at Bournemouth if they were being hypocrites whining about other clubs ruining football, but so happens it Spurs fans so here we are.

 

[chef]

Historically under Roman you have always played your best football with physical beasts leading the line like Drogba and Costa. I don't see Morata fitting this bill, he has the height for it but not sure on his aggressiveness/strength.

Im sure theres a reason Conte has been after this guy for years now. Theres a style he wants to play and Morata is his man.

Happy to give him some actual playing time before calling him a dud or waste of money.

 

[chef]

Man theres a heap of other clubs that waste more money than us and are the actual ones that are causing player prices to skyrocket. But we are an easy/lazy target.

 

[chef]

When did Chelsea ever really ruin football? I've never worked this one out.

Started in 2003.

 

[Magma]

theoretically it's sponsorships, tv deals and prize money causing an upturn in fees.

 

[Zidane98]

theoretically it's sponsorships, tv deals and prize money causing an upturn in fees.

Clubs backed by oil money / natural resources and lately Chinese money has inflated the transfer market just as much as sponsorship / tv money has.

 

[chef]

Clubs backed by oil money / natural resources and lately Chinese money has inflated the transfer market just as much as sponsorship / tv money has.

Dont forget Yank money too.

 

[FAITH]

Dont forget Yank money too.

which yanks actually put that much money into their clubs though?

 

[Milanista28]

Lukaku is the best striker in the world.

I'd have him as 3rd best in Manchester.

 

[Magma]

Clubs backed by oil money / natural resources and lately Chinese money has inflated the transfer market just as much as sponsorship / tv money has.

if there wasnt ridiculous money to make back backers would be a lot less interested.

 

[go you pups]

Sissoko was a 20m player that you paid 30m for, Morata is a 40m player they've paid 60m for. Both are 1.5 times the players value, so why is it that Chelsea are the ones inflating the market and not Spurs?

Lukaku is prob a 50m player that cost 75m, Lacazette is prob a 35m player that cost 50m, you just flogged off a 27yo fullback that your own fans think is worse than his backup for 50m, no one is innocent in the inflated state of the transfer market if they are overpaying for players or fleecing other clubs ridiculous fees for their own.

And I'd dig in at Bournemouth if they were being hypocrites whining about other clubs ruining football, but so happens it Spurs fans so here we are.

Bloody hell, you are melty

 

[elhadjihenry]

Bloody hell, you are melty

Nah, just a realist

 

[kangaspurs]

Sissoko was a 20m player that you paid 30m for, Morata is a 40m player they've paid 60m for. Both are 1.5 times the players value, so why is it that Chelsea are the ones inflating the market and not Spurs?

Lukaku is prob a 50m player that cost 75m, Lacazette is prob a 35m player that cost 50m, you just flogged off a 27yo fullback that your own fans think is worse than his backup for 50m, no one is innocent in the inflated state of the transfer market if they are overpaying for players or fleecing other clubs ridiculous fees for their own.

And I'd dig in at Bournemouth if they were being hypocrites whining about other clubs ruining football, but so happens it Spurs fans so here we are.

You added an unnecessary '0' and 'm' to Sissolos value.

 

[go you pups]

Nah, just a realist

A realist or a hindsight hero?

I'm judging these players worth at the time they were bought at, not what they will become........

 

[PendlePie]

A realist or a hindsight hero?

I'm judging these players worth at the time they were bought at, not what they will become........

Lol. He's a realist. He's displaying that, in recent windows, the fees paid by a majority of clubs are exorbitant. What's not to get? Quite an open and shut case tbh. It's (almost) every club's fault that things are the way they are. EPL clubs are more responsible than others.

 

[Cooldude]

Everything's been inflated since the new TV deal

 

[go you pups]

Lol. He's a realist. He's displaying that, in recent windows, the fees paid by a majority of clubs are exorbitant. What's not to get? Quite an open and shut case tbh. It's (almost) every club's fault that things are the way they are. EPL clubs are more responsible than others.

Yes fees are exorbitant these days, selling to rivals inflation, home grown player inflation, TV rights inflation, you're buying our crown jewel inflation etc, but imo a lot of these factors were not applicable for Morata except TV rights to a lesser extent.

Imo you can justify what you pay for said player based on certain variables. I'm firmly in the Man Utd camp on their striker search on this one.

 

[elhadjihenry]

A realist or a hindsight hero?

I'm judging these players worth at the time they were bought at, not what they will become........

Hindsight hero? This is my post from deadline day 2016 when you signed him:

Thoughts on deadline day:

• Sissoko a decent pick up for Spurs but paid way over for him. Would play the same position as Dembele who will be back in a few weeks so seems odd to pay 30 million for someone will likely not even be first choice for the rest of the season. Guess he is an upgrade on Mason as squad depth.
• Disappointed with Wilshere's decision to go to Bournemouth with offers from Roma and supposedly AC Milan on the table. Went for the comfortable option. Also disappointed we let him go, first time in years we have had such squad depth and letting homegrown players leave just seems a waste. Likewise for Gnabry.
• Not sure what to think about Luiz, bought him back for less than they sold him for and got a CB which they needed, my main memory of him in the PL was being heavily error prone so not sure he's the right choice. Obviously a bit of desperation there.
• Feel sorry for Everton, snub city this window.
• Leicester showing a bit of intent with Slimani, if he can reproduce his form from Portugal looks a great signing.

Think our window was just above adequate, filled two holes in the squad (albeit far too late with the CB) but still didn't get the striker we really need, and lost 5 potential points by dilly-dallying. Xhaka and Mustafi bring some much needed physicality to the team and both young enough to have long term impact. Who knows about Perez, could be brilliant or could be a flop but as long as is better than Walcott and Ox he has improved the squad. Holding looks promising so far and could end up being an absolute steal.

Pardon me if these have been posted, haven't read the thread all night:

 

[Cooldude]

You said he'd be a decent pickup for them so you lose

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Sissoko was a 20m player that you paid 30m for, Morata is a 40m player they've paid 60m for. Both are 1.5 times the players value, so why is it that Chelsea are the ones inflating the market and not Spurs?

Not that I disagree/agree about price inflation. Don't actually give a toss really but surely this is pure subjectivism used to suit the argument. How do you know what a player is really worth? Players are worth what someone is willing to pay for them, objectively that is.

Lukaku is prob a 50m player that cost 75m, Lacazette is prob a 35m player that cost 50m, you just flogged off a 27yo fullback that your own fans think is worse than his backup for 50m, no one is innocent in the inflated state of the transfer market if they are overpaying for players or fleecing other clubs ridiculous fees for their own.

Before I and presumably others have to repeat ourselves again, not many think that, the very small minority do. Don't know where this mere acceptance that it's the dominant opinion has come from. Let's be abundantly clear, the vast majority are aware we've sold our best right back.

And I'd dig in at Bournemouth if they were being hypocrites whining about other clubs ruining football, but so happens it Spurs fans so here we are.

Thanks for the generalisation. You're arguing with a grand total of 1 fan, not the collective.