Transfer discussion thread

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

Again separate issue.

Fees have gone up no one disputes that, it just means that to be fiscally responsible you should just be buying less players if the fees are higher.
No one is disputing that Levy being an astute businessman hasn't contributed to fees going up, it does.

You miss the point merely because you can still choose to buy players at expensive fees and still stay in the black, you just buy less players is all. The status quo will still remain as the bigger clubs can still buy better players than Bournemouth or Huddersfield can and can spend more as their £££ share is higher + UCL money and larger revenues etc, it just means that an English side is unlikely to truly compete for one trophy, the Champions League trophy but they already do that anyway..

 

[largebus]

Even with inflated market the record shouldn't be broken for shit players who will never be the best in the world.

PSG should listen to that advice before they buy Neymar

 

[moomba]

If you spend what you can afford it's sustainable.

If you spend what you can't afford then it's not, but no-one is forcing you to carry on spending at those levels.

Personally think not spending money on your squad is more unsustainable. Spurs have been the exception to that rule over the past few years. But I think Levy will eventually have to change his approach.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Again separate issue.

Fees have gone up no one disputes that, it just means that to be fiscally responsible you should just be buying less players if the fees are higher.
No one is disputing that Levy being an astute businessman hasn't contributed to fees going up, it does.

This was pretty much my sole point in the argument with SM.

You miss the point merely because you can still choose to buy players at expensive fees and still stay in the black, you just buy less players is all. The status quo will still remain as the bigger clubs can still buy better players than Bournemouth or Huddersfield can and can spend more as their £££ share is higher + UCL money and larger revenues etc, it just means that an English side is unlikely to truly compete for one trophy, the Champions League trophy but they already do that anyway..

I partially agree with this, although I would argue that the reason for this problem is still the inflated market which means they are related issues and you can't criticise one while being partly responsible for the other.

 

[Latro]

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

Fans of teams who have won the EPL.

 

[SM]

Fans of teams who have won the EPL.

Weird, could have sworn Man U fan was pointing out the silliness of the Gooners.

 

[Bostonian]

Man City have spent more on fullbacks this off-season than we've spent on players in the history of our club.

Perspective.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

This was pretty much my sole point in the argument with SM.

I partially agree with this, although I would argue that the reason for this problem is still the inflated market which means they are related issues and you can't criticise one while being partly responsible for the other.

They are related but I'd argue that it's not the reason for clubs spending beyond their means. It's chairmen and managers and recruiters etc that don't know when to say "NO, we cannot afford this player".

My sole point from the first post on this topic was that the focus unfairly was on what Levy has done in the transfer market which at times is hoard money and at times extort massive fees out of clubs. It's not the right point to focus on.

If the pervayor of crux of what he's quoted as saying was John Doe or some random from down at the pub we'd all be nodding furiously in agreement but instead here we are focusing on the side issue which is far less important than the main point.

I don't agree that selling clubs extracting as much as they can is leading to a situation Daniel prophesies where essentially the bubble bursts and fees go to a point where they can't go any further sustainably. The responsibility rests solely with the men in charge of the clubs who spend more than they should and at some point need to pull in the reigns and tighten the belt a little.

 

[SM]

This was pretty much my sole point in the argument with SM.

When did I ever say it doesn't contribute? As I said, you're absolutely right, Spurs could have given Walker away for free and they didn't. That means absolutely nothing though.

 

[moomba]

Man City have spent more on fullbacks this off-season than we've spent on players in the history of our club.

Perspective.

Suspect our revenue last season exceeds B&HA's revenue over the course of their history too.

 

[CFC_JP]

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

I've been doing my bit to eradicate the evil empire that is the petroleum owned football clubs and have been riding my bike in to work 3 times a week

 

[RPCB]

If Barca breaks the record for Coutinho it will be even more embarrassing than when the record was broken for Pogba. Even with inflated market the record shouldn't be broken for shit players who will never be the best in the world.

Bale cost more than Ronaldo.

Now, go in a corner and fight with yourself.

 

[Magma]

I've been doing my bit to eradicate the evil empire that is the petroleum owned football clubs and have been riding my bike in to work 3 times a week

pedal harder, you've got some work to do.

 

[moomba]

Probably uses Nexen Tyres on his bike. Cheers for your support. [emoji106]

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

 

[Fryer Tuck]

To think PSG broke football (Neymar), not the English clubs.

200m Euros, crazy money.

 

[Zidane98]

Suspect our revenue last season exceeds B&HA's revenue over the course of their history too.

Your defence spending does exceed what some countries spend on defence though and their revenues exceed Cities revenue.

 

[kangaspurs]

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.

Wait... so during negotiations do you really expect him to go 'Hmm... spending in football is unsustainable, here City have Walker for 20m.'

 

[largebus]

Maybe the new stadium is hitting Spurs harder than we thought

 

[pantskyle]

To think PSG broke football (Neymar), not the English clubs.

200m Euros, crazy money.

RM and City are battling it out for Mbappe at a similar price.

Pep has basically confirmed City are into him and Marca peddling it for RM.

 

[PendlePie]

Wait... so during negotiations do you really expect him to go 'Hmm... spending in football is unsustainable, here City have Walker for 20m.'

Wait... so during negotiations you expect City to go "hmm, we have hundred of millions of pounds in reserve, and Spurs are asking for 50mil for Walker, but we won't meet that price because it'll drive prices up for other clubs that can't afford it"?

Works both ways.

 

[SM]

Wait... so during negotiations you expect City to go "hmm, we have hundred of millions of pounds in reserve, and Spurs are asking for 50mil for Walker, but we won't meet that price because it'll drive prices up for other clubs that can't afford it"?

Works both ways.

No, I would have thought a club would sit there and say "We value this player at X, they want X + 20m, we won't buy him because we back our world class facilities to turn a player who costs X - 10m to turn into a better player." Or, "Our second option won't cost as much but isn't worse enough to justify not moving on to him."

So either improve your facilities or improve your scouting network.

 

[kangaspurs]

Wait... so during negotiations you expect City to go "hmm, we have hundred of millions of pounds in reserve, and Spurs are asking for 50mil for Walker, but we won't meet that price because it'll drive prices up for other clubs that can't afford it"?

Works both ways.

What?

Sorry, maybe my comprehension is terrible, but I don't get the point you're trying to make here.

 

[Latro]

 

[moomba]

Your defence spending does exceed what some countries spend on defence though and their revenues exceed Cities revenue.

Yeah. Seen the gag before. It's a funny one.

Still with an average spend of less than £20m a year on our defence over the past 9 years before this one we've bought defenders with 12 premier league winners medals between them, not to mention FA and league cups.

Bet some clubs would love that sort of ratio.