Transfer discussion thread

[pantskyle]

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.

You'd expect the selling club to ask for a lot more, most of the time they don't want to sell, not on them that buyers inflate the market.

 

[elhadjihenry]

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.

On the contrary, no one is forcing Spurs to negotiate up to a 50m fee for Walker. They could have accepted a lower offer or not sold him at all, every transfer has two parties (three if you include the player/agent) who are both complicit and responsible for the fee that is negotiated.

 

[SM]

On the contrary, no one is forcing Spurs to negotiate up to a 50m fee for Walker. They could have accepted a lower offer or not sold him at all, every transfer has two parties (three if you include the player/agent) who are both complicit and responsible for the fee that is negotiated.

..Exactly. If Spurs don't want to sell they're perfectly entitled to set a ridiculous price to ward off buyers. It's not their fault if a club meets that price.

 

[elhadjihenry]

..Exactly. If Spurs don't want to sell they're perfectly entitled to set a ridiculous price to ward off buyers. It's not their fault if a club meets that price.

If they didn't want to sell they shouldn't have sold . It wasn't a buyout clause it was a transfer negotiation between the two clubs, they were well within their rights to reject any offer they received but instead they decided to cash in on the inflated state of the market.

 

[SM]

If they didn't want to sell they shouldn't have sold . It wasn't a buyout clause it was a transfer negotiation between the two clubs, they were well within their rights to reject any offer they received but instead they decided to cash in on the inflated state of the market.

I feel like we're going around in circles here. Maybe best to just leave it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

You keep missing the point so no point continuing this circular argument.

 

[Zidane98]

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.

So much this. Clubs that have unlimited funds don't have to spend huge amounts on players. They can buy an unknown player and turn them into a gem or promote a young player. Instead more and more money is thrown at players until selling clubs are unable to refuse. This and TV rights exploding are the 2 main drivers behind inflation in the transfer market.

 

[pantskyle]

If they didn't want to sell they shouldn't have sold . It wasn't a buyout clause it was a transfer negotiation between the two clubs, they were well within their rights to reject any offer they received but instead they decided to cash in on the inflated state of the market.

Some offers you simply can't turn down, 50m for Walker is one of them.

 

[elhadjihenry]

You keep missing the point so no point continuing this circular argument.

lol dude you responded to my post by completely misunderstanding what I was saying. People in glass houses etc etc.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Some offers you simply can't turn down, 50m for Walker is one of them.

Agreed you can't turn it down, but you also can't accept it and then moan about the inflated state of the transfer market.

 

[SM]

Agreed you can't turn it down, but you also can't accept it and then moan about the inflated state of the transfer market.

Lol I don't think he was moaning, he was making an observation that it's unsustainable for those clubs.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Lol I don't think he was moaning, he was making an observation that it's unsustainable for those clubs.

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Spurs are part of the problem if they are going to accept inflated transfer fees, they should get off their high horse and accept that.

 

[PendlePie]

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Spurs are part of the problem if they are going to accept inflated transfer fees, they should get off their high horse and accept that.

Spot on.

Levy was totally on point with what he said. But he (like the other EPL clubs and their bosses) is part of the problem. No two ways about it.

 

[SM]

How dare they not let their players go for peanuts. Monsters.

Common theme amongst those criticising Levy, but I can't put my finger on it..

 

[PendlePie]

How dare they not let their players go for peanuts. Monsters.

By all means, sell for a massive fee. But just because the incentive is there to do so, it doesn't absolve these clubs and operators of their fair share of blame/responsibility for the current situation.

Is Levy spot on with what he said? Yes.

Is Levy, like every other EPL club boss, a willing participant in this inflated market? Absolutely.

Simple as that.

Common theme amongst those criticising Levy, but I can't put my finger on it..

Criticising, or making the accurate observation that he's a willing contributor to the current landscape? Hmmmm.

 

[Zidane98]

Can't blame Spurs for inflated fees IMO. They have City turning the head of their player with huge wages (Walker). Spurs don't want to sell him but are pretty much forced to so ask City to pay 50m for what is realistically a 25-30m pound player. City can turn around and say no thankyou. City are the team that decide to spend 50m. Not Spurs.

 

[Jatz]

How dare they not let their players go for peanuts. Monsters.

Common theme amongst those criticising Levy, but I can't put my finger on it..

I criticised him as well. What's the common trend now?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

lol dude you responded to my post by completely misunderstanding what I was saying. People in glass houses etc etc.

I understand you hence why I was able to pass comment that you'd missed the point of his comments.

Spot on.

Levy was totally on point with what he said. But he (like the other EPL clubs and their bosses) is part of the problem. No two ways about it.

no he isn't, this is where the issue splits into two issues.
There's the issue of inflating prices for transfer which all selling clubs do by eeking out every last penny from a sale, Daniel is no different in that.
The second issue, the one he addressed, was that spending more than what is earnt is unsustainable.

Two separate issues.

How dare they not let their players go for peanuts. Monsters.

Common theme amongst those criticising Levy, but I can't put my finger on it..

the same rivals fans that'd laugh if Levy sold players for nothing (as to not inflate the market) and bought cheap players (as to not inflate the market) and thus are a rubbish side. Can't win.

 

[Magma]

reminder to everyone to fuel up their cars, we need to get mbappe.

 

[FAITH]

reminder to everyone to fuel up their cars, we need to get mbappe.

filled up under cost price 99c/l, so suffer citeh grp

 

[SM]

I criticised him as well. What's the common trend now?

Hasn't it been long established you're a closet Gooner?

 

[elhadjihenry]

no he isn't, this is where the issue splits into two issues.
There's the issue of inflating prices for transfer which all selling clubs do by eeking out every last penny from a sale, Daniel is no different in that.
The second issue, the one he addressed, was that spending more than what is earnt is unsustainable.

Two separate issues.

The issues are fundamentally related, clubs are spending more than they earn because of inflated transfer fees. The going rate for players is increasing faster than the rate of revenue clubs are earning and in order to stay competitive and win trophies they are having to spend unsustainable amounts of money on players.

If the market wasn't so inflated and City had bought Walker for 20m, Mendy for 15m and Ederson for 20m then this wouldn't really be an issue would it? However the fact they have had to spend a combined 150m for them has lead to it being potentially unsustainable.

 

[Loonerty]

gets 4 year contract and sent on loan..
not like he is ever going to play a single game for Chelsea .

Fun fact: Izzy Brown has played a game for Chelsea.

 

[moomba]

For me the practice of signing footballers purely as investments needs to be regulated or stopped. Unethical and used to dodge FFP (amortization not on your FFP books while your player is out on loan).

Pretty sure thats not the case.

Have no problem with a player being signed with a view to eventually playing for the club that bought him.

I believe that any new signing should not allowed to be loaned out for the first season of their contract. That should sort out which deals are genuine in their intent of developing a player and which ones are done purely to sell a player at a profit. After that first season loaning should be allowed.

In principal not a bad idea, but there are many situations where a player is bought and loaned out without any intention of selling for profit.

 

[chef]

Fun fact: Izzy Brown has played a game for Chelsea.

Whoops.