Transfer discussion thread

[chef]

Danilo confirmed he rejected Chelsea chef. Your club was desperate to sign him but he said once City swooped in he snubbed you.

Meh.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Also:

http://www.espnfc.com.au/tottenham-...nding-in-premier-league-totally-unsustainable

Take it from me or someone who supports Leeds/Rangers, he's not wrong at all.

Complains about big clubs spending too much money on players, but fleeces his own players to said clubs for twice their value. STFU Daniel, don't complain if you are also happy to take advantage of it and pocket the cash.

 

[Magma]

i do expect the spending bubble to pop in the next 5 or so years.

 

[Cruyff14]

Well it did impact us, and in that time we didn't sell our best player.

Not to the extent it would us.

You guys have more ambition, willingness to spend etc.

 

[PendlePie]

Complains about big clubs spending too much money on players, but fleeces his own players to said clubs for twice their value. STFU Daniel, don't complain if you are also happy to take advantage of it and pocket the cash.

It's akin to Luke Shuey coming out and criticising Joel Selwood for drawing head high free kicks.

No EPL club is innocent in this.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Also:

http://www.espnfc.com.au/tottenham-...nding-in-premier-league-totally-unsustainable

Take it from me or someone who supports Leeds/Rangers, he's not wrong at all.

Nothing he says there is incorrect. It's business 101 stuff really.
A few predictable souls on here making it about the club he's chairman of when that's entirely missing his point.

 

[pantskyle]

Not to the extent it would us.

You guys have more ambition, willingness to spend etc.

We have deeper pockets, Arsenal can't afford to sell Sanchez IMO.

 

[Cruyff14]

We have deeper pockets, Arsenal can't afford to sell Sanchez IMO.

We have plenty of money - maybe not to the extent of you guys - but we don't use it like normal clubs do.

I agree 100%, we'll be in big trouble unless we replaced him with 3-4 genuine very good players.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Nothing he says there is incorrect. It's business 101 stuff really.
A few predictable souls on here making it about the club he's chairman of when that's entirely missing his point.

Yeah he doesn't mention Tottenham at all in that article does he

 

[chef]

Complains about big clubs spending too much money on players, but fleeces his own players to said clubs for twice their value. STFU Daniel, don't complain if you are also happy to take advantage of it and pocket the cash.

Yep. The rinsers are as much to blame as the rinsees.

Its a vicious circle.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah he doesn't mention Tottenham at all in that article does he

It was a Q&A as he rang the opening bell at the NASDAQ. He didn't write the article so some of the stuff mentioned may have been a separate question entirely.

But let's address what he did say .

"My view is that it's totally unsustainable. I'm not sure if that's the view of the other Premier League clubs, but certainly the prices that are being paid for other Premier League players I can't see it being sustainable in the long term," Levy said in a Q&A with the NASDAQ stock exchange in New York.

"I think I am a custodian of this football club. This club has been around since 1882 and when I leave it will be somebody else. I think we have a duty to manage the club appropriately. I don't think that long term for any club it's sustainable to spend more than you earn. You can have periods where you do but over the long term you can't.

"I think that some of the activity that's going on at the moment is just impossible to be sustainable. If somebody is spending £200m more than they're earning then eventually it catches up with you. You can't keep doing it.

Nothing said here is outlandish, complaining or moaning or incorrect. It's accounting for dummies stuff. Spend less than you earn and it's unsustainable, that's a fact.

A chairman who talks about his duty to manage a club appropriately. What an evil man he is

"We've managed the club, we think, in a very appropriate way. We've invested a lot of money in physical facilities for long-term growth. So we've got one of the world's best training facilities. We've invested over £100m in that facility.

"We're now investing in the stadium. The stadium is fundamental because with that we get more fans and more income and that's the way to clearly have a more sustainable business."

Now you moaned about his comments because he's spent less than rivals. Sure, he has spent less. We also earn less, comments surrounding this merely highlight what's being done to increase revenue long term so that surprise surprise spending can improve. That's usually how you grow, by investing.

Evil man for mentioning this.

"Regardless of the stadium project, today our position on transfers is that we have a coach that very much believes in the academy," he said.

"Unless we can find a player who would make a difference he would rather give one of our academy players a chance so that's regardless of the financing of the stadium.

"Obviously when you're building a stadium of this magnitude in a UK context it all has to be privately financed. There's no state help whatsoever.

"It is a challenge and we have to find the right balance but it's not impacting us at the moment on transfer activity because we're not yet in a place where we've found the player who we definitely want to buy but can't afford to buy."

This is also true, and a major reason for recent thriftiness in the market. A manager who at Soton also showed a preference for youth. Don't see it changing and it isn't Daniel who's at fault for that, it's MoPo.

Now, I haven't bothered to look up finances to see which clubs are running at a loss and which are at a profit but there are clubs in debt across Europe. FFP was brought in to curtail spending so clearly only a matter of years ago (Before It was watered down) UEFA were concerned about spending, including iirc your manager on many occasions too.

In case you haven't caught on yet, Nothing he said was incorrect. Transfer spending in recent seasons has skyrocketed and its unsustainable. But by all means fixate yourself on the club he chairs.

Question, all this money Arsenal has in reserve you'd like it spent yes?
I too would like the money we earn spent on improving the team, at the moment it's improving the club off field which is fine but would you like Arsenal spending more money than it earns?

There's a distinction and you've missed it in all the bluster about Levy.

 

[kangaspurs]

Again, what he's actually worth and what clubs would have to spend to get him are two different things.

I really don't understand why so many have struggled to grasp that concept...

Hallelujah!

Also:

http://www.espnfc.com.au/tottenham-...nding-in-premier-league-totally-unsustainable

Take it from me or someone who supports Leeds/Rangers, he's not wrong at all.

Haha he's just trying to weasel out of spending some money.

 

[elhadjihenry]

It was a Q&A as he rang the opening bell at the NASDAQ. He didn't write the article so some of the stuff mentioned may have been a separate question entirely.

But let's address what he did say .



Nothing said here is outlandish, complaining or moaning or incorrect. It's accounting for dummies stuff. Spend less than you earn and it's unsustainable, that's a fact.

A chairman who talks about his duty to manage a club appropriately. What an evil man he is



Now you moaned about his comments because he's spent less than rivals. Sure, he has spent less. We also earn less, comments surrounding this merely highlight what's being done to increase revenue long term so that surprise surprise spending can improve. That's usually how you grow, by investing.

Evil man for mentioning this.



This is also true, and a major reason for recent thriftiness in the market. A manager who at Soton also showed a preference for youth. Don't see it changing and it isn't Daniel who's at fault for that, it's MoPo.

Now, I haven't bothered to look up finances to see which clubs are running at a loss and which are at a profit but there are clubs in debt across Europe. FFP was brought in to curtail spending so clearly only a matter of years ago (Before It was watered down) UEFA were concerned about spending, including iirc your manager on many occasions too.

In case you haven't caught on yet, Nothing he said was incorrect. Transfer spending in recent seasons has skyrocketed and its unsustainable. But by all means fixate yourself on the club he chairs.

Question, all this money Arsenal has in reserve you'd like it spent yes?
I too would like the money we earn spent on improving the team, at the moment it's improving the club off field which is fine but would you like Arsenal spending more money than it earns?

There's a distinction and you've missed it in all the bluster about Levy.

I didn't say once that I thought he was incorrect or ever say anything about him being "evil" (where the hell did you pull that from??).

All I said was that he is a hypocrite for calling out the unsustainable spending of other clubs while taking advantage of it himself by selling his players at massively inflated prices. Even with Spurs blinkers on you can't argue that.

 

[Cruyff14]

I didn't say once that I thought he was incorrect or ever say anything about him being "evil" (where the hell did you pull that from??).

All I said was that he is a hypocrite for calling out the unsustainable spending of other clubs while taking advantage of it himself by selling his players at massively inflated prices. Even with Spurs blinkers on you can't argue that.

Can't really argue with that.

 

[Established1870]

Complains about big clubs spending too much money on players, but fleeces his own players to said clubs for twice their value. STFU Daniel, don't complain if you are also happy to take advantage of it and pocket the cash.

Can we remove his background and look at it from a purely objective point of view? The money clubs are spending on players is unsustainable, the bubble will burst because of said un-sustainability and eventually a lot of teams will find out the hard way.

Sunderland spent years buying average players on sky-high wages (and before you say anything, how much was Squillaci earning at Arsenal?), got relegated and now are financially ****ed unless either a new owner comes in or Short clears the debt entirely. If you want extreme examples of financial mismanagement, look at Leeds or Rangers. Powerhouses and 2 of the biggest clubs in the UK (and arguably the world) who literally spent more than what they could, mortgaging the present for the future, and whilst Rangers could get back to the top of the table and see regular European football again, Leeds will probably never get higher than a top 10 finish in the PL despite their history and success.

 

[Established1870]

All I said was that he is a hypocrite for calling out the unsustainable spending of other clubs while taking advantage of it himself by selling his players at massively inflated prices. Even with Spurs blinkers on you can't argue that.

So if clubs are stupid enough to pay what he wants that Daniel's fault is it?

 

[SM]

Complains about big clubs spending too much money on players, but fleeces his own players to said clubs for twice their value. STFU Daniel, don't complain if you are also happy to take advantage of it and pocket the cash.

How so? He's basically saying "Lol can't believe City are spending 50m on Walker."

 

[elhadjihenry]

So if clubs are stupid enough to pay what he wants that Daniel's fault is it?

Did I say that? It's not his or Spurs fault, but if you want to call out the rest of the clubs for unsustainable spending you have to be accountable for your own role in that.

It's Spurs pretending like the little guy on the side who is just trying to run their club the right way while everyone else is involved in this ridiculous inflated market that annoys me, they are as much at fault for it as anyone else is.

City wouldn't have just offered 50m for Walker out of the blue, they would have enquired about him and been told by Levy that's what he would cost.

 

[Bostonian]

No EPL club is innocent in this.

We are

 

[SM]

Did I say that? It's not his or Spurs fault, but if you want to call out the rest of the clubs for unsustainable spending you have to be accountable for your own role in that.

It's Spurs pretending like the little guy on the side who is just trying to run their club the right way while everyone else is involved in this ridiculous inflated market that annoys me, they are as much at fault for it as anyone else is.

City wouldn't have just offered 50m for Walker out of the blue, they would have enquired about him and been told by Levy that's what he would cost.

Still not sure what you're trying to get at. If Spurs ask for 50m and every club says "Lol no way" and Spurs want to sell, they lower their asking price. It's really not logical to blame Levy for trying to be an astute businessman, and in fact that's exactly the point he's making.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Still not sure what you're trying to get at. If Spurs ask for 50m and every club says "Lol no way" and Spurs want to sell, they lower their asking price. It's really not logical to blame Levy for trying to be an astute businessman, and in fact that's exactly the point he's making.

What I'm trying to get it is he is talking about other clubs spending beyond their means, which is a result of an inflated market that is largely due to clubs asking for huge fees for their players. Sure selling Walker for 50m is astute business for Spurs, but the net result is that then increases the transfer fees for other players as that sets a new benchmark for player values, which leads to more unsustainable spending.

The way you phrase it was that Spurs basically said "Walker is for sale for 50m" and City were stupid enough to go "OK", when in reality City would have enquired on the availability of Walker and negotiated with Spurs over price which ended up being a highly inflated 50m. Levy himself is responsible for that final transfer fee as much as Man City are, and when making comments like those in this article he is ignoring that accountability and shifting the blame purely onto the buying clubs.

 

[Cooldude]

Clubs can only buy the players to strengthen based off the price selling clubs ask for, it's a two way street

 

[SM]

What I'm trying to get it is he is talking about other clubs spending beyond their means, which is a result of an inflated market that is largely due to clubs asking for huge fees for their players. Sure selling Walker for 50m is astute business for Spurs, but the net result is that then increases the transfer fees for other players as that sets a new benchmark for player values, which leads to more unsustainable spending.

The way you phrase it was that Spurs basically said "Walker is for sale for 50m" and City were stupid enough to go "OK", when in reality City would have enquired on the availability of Walker and negotiated with Spurs over price which ended up being a highly inflated 50m. Levy himself is responsible for that final transfer fee as much as Man City are, and when making comments like those in this article he is ignoring that accountability and shifting the blame purely onto the buying clubs.

But it's down to City saying internally "We're willing to pay 50m because we value Walker at 50m+" If City don't value him that high they say "Thanks, but no thanks." to Spurs and move on to a different target.

 

[elhadjihenry]

But it's down to City saying internally "We're willing to pay 50m because we value Walker at 50m+" If City don't value him that high they say "Thanks, but no thanks." to Spurs and move on to a different target.

That's one side of the coin and of course City are just as responsible, but like Cooldude said above transfers are a two way street and if selling clubs are going to hold out and negotiate for huge fees then they are just as responsible as the buying clubs are IMO.

 

[SM]

That's one side of the coin and of course City are just as responsible, but like Cooldude said above transfers are a two way street and if selling clubs are going to hold out and negotiate for huge fees then they are just as responsible as the buying clubs are IMO.

Going to have to agree to disagree, I really don't see how the selling club is responsible for the amounts being spent. They aren't forcing clubs to spend the money. As I suggested to Magma the other day, clubs do have alternatives to splashing 30-50m on players.