Transfer discussion thread

[FAITH]

To be fair I think he's worth a bit more than 100m pence.

Try HArder

 

[Hawkforce]

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.

Sorry but what a lot of horseshit. You're completely ignoring the wages factor. It's not "just" that City have spent 200 million on fullbacks in one window - it's that they can come to Kyle Walker and double his wages becuase they simply don't have to worry about being fiscally responsible. If a player's head is going to be turned by the prospect of doubling his weekly pay packet all Levy (and any non oil billionaire Chairman) can do is get as much money for a that contracted player as possible.

He's just being fiscally responsible in a fiscally insane market. Spending this year is obscene.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah if Spurs (in this instance), are trying to get the most they can for selling a player of their own, and then cry foul that it is inflating prices, they can't really complain if they contribute (partially) to it.

Not often I so strongly disagree with you, but I really do think many are missing the point, and you're one of them.

 

[moomba]

Sorry but what a lot of horseshit. You're completely ignoring the wages factor. It's not "just" that City have spent 200 million on fullbacks in one window

Have we?

it's that they can come to Kyle Walker and double his wages becuase they simply don't have to worry about being fiscally responsible.

It's not fiscally irresponsible to pay high wages.

 

[Indie_]

Like clearly the #1 reason for transfer fees going up is literally all the clubs have way more money now and inflation. Would have thought that's pretty ****ing basic. A 30m transfer quite literally is not the same as what a 30m transfer was even 5 years ago, let alone 10/15 years ago.

 

[Cruyff14]

Not often I so strongly disagree with you, but I really do think many are missing the point, and you're one of them.

Well if there is a point that is being missed, nobody (on what appears to be the opposing side) has explained it clearly whatsoever.

Inflation happens. Look at house prices, transfer fees are another example.

 

[moomba]

Read yesterday that this year or next is expected to be the first time all premier league clubs will finish with a profit.

Doesnt really suggest unsustainability to me.

I do think many nowaday would prefer an owner walk away with a big profit than spend the money earned by the club (largely down to supporters) on improving the playing squad.

For us, I want us to do everything we can to do to build a side to achieve success. If that means Sheikh Mansour accepts less of a profit thats fine by me.

The only thing I would be happy with is a forced reduction or cap in spending if it was directly responsible for a reduction in ticket prices. That to me is far more outrageous than the current level of spending.

 

[Established1870]

Like clearly the #1 reason for transfer fees going up is literally all the clubs have way more money now and inflation. Would have thought that's pretty ******* basic. A 30m transfer quite literally is not the same as what a 30m transfer was even 5 years ago, let alone 10/15 years ago.

Applies to just about every big league in Europe with more demand for them but it didn't stop young gun Mahmoud Dahoud going from Borrussia Monchengladbach to BVB for 12 million Euros. Aside from the super clubs and PL clubs, most others live within their means and spend a fraction of what they do.

Huddersfield buying Steve Mounie for 11.5 million pounds would be unfathomable for a club like St Etienne in France despite being their most successful club domestically. I don't think people who keep their heads firmly entrenched in the EPL viewpoint understand the ridiculous money and the effects it has on the game as a whole.

Read yesterday that this year or next is expected to be the first time all premier league clubs will finish with a profit.

Doesnt really suggest unsustainability to me.

Yeah and how many clubs are in debt? How many clubs plunge into financial crisis after losing out on the EPL cashcow?

 

[SM]

Read yesterday that this year or next is expected to be the first time all premier league clubs will finish with a profit.

Doesnt really suggest unsustainability to me.

I do think many nowaday would prefer an owner walk away with a big profit than spend the money earned by the club (largely down to supporters) on improving the playing squad.

For us, I want us to do everything we can to do to build a side to achieve success. If that means Sheikh Mansour accepts less of a profit thats fine by me.

The only thing I would be happy with is a forced reduction or cap in spending if it was directly responsible for a reduction in ticket prices. That to me is far more outrageous than the current level of spending.

I think a lot would rather it spent on long lasting infrastructure. Precisely what levy mentions.

 

[moomba]

Yeah and how many clubs are in debt? How many clubs plunge into financial crisis after losing out on the EPL cashcow?

Totally different issues. All concerning but nowt to do with current levels of spending.

Clubs that endanger their futures by spending what they can't afford deserve criticism. But I just don't think clubs are doing that. Spending big for sure, but they have the money to do it.

Clubs going down is a much bigger issue. You've got to protect them to an extent (they need to protect themselves as well). But you've also got to give the other clubs in the lower divisions a chance over the "parachute clubs".

Personally think premier league abd champions league money should be spread much more evenly through the divisions. But a lot of the people that talk about fairness and the future of the fame don't like that cause it will cost their club.

 

[Indie_]

Applies to just about every big league in Europe with more demand for them but it didn't stop young gun Mahmoud Dahoud going from Borrussia Monchengladbach to BVB for 12 million Euros.

Dahoud also only had one year left on his contract. Monchengladbach also don't have the ability to let him leave for free so are forced into accepting a lowish bid for him.

Aside from the super clubs and PL clubs, most others live within their means and spend a fraction of what they do.

Which super clubs or PL clubs are not living within their means? Of course they spend far more than other clubs, it's because they have much more money than other clubs.

Huddersfield buying Steve Mounie for 11.5 million pounds would be unfathomable for a club like St Etienne in France despite being their most successful club domestically. I don't think people who keep their heads firmly entrenched in the EPL viewpoint understand the ridiculous money and the effects it has on the game as a whole.

This is just an argument for implementing a salary cap across European Leagues. At the point where that doesn't exist, you can hardly fault clubs for using their financial muscle to exploit the system? Of course it's going to be unfair, but that's the system.

 

[Cooldude]

If Gladbach weren't stupid and accepted the 35 mil we bid for Dahoud then they wouldn't have lost him for peanuts

 

[moomba]

I think a lot would rather it spent on long lasting infrastructure. Precisely what levy mentions.

Thats fine for Spurs but people want that to apply to all clubs, including those that are already spending significant amounts on infrastructure.

People are outraged by us spending £130m on fullbacks. If we didnt and spent £30m instead what would be the effect.

£20m or so bigger profit a year for the next 4/5 years and our side wouldnt be as strong. We might get knocked out if the champions league earlier and finish lower in the league (with the resultant reduction in income that comes with it).

Suspect most of the bitching that accompanies our spending doesnt go too far past "we want City to be weaker".

 

[Zidane98]

Totally different issues. All concerning but nowt to do with current levels of spending.

Clubs that endanger their futures by spending what they can't afford deserve criticism. But I just don't think clubs are doing that. Spending big for sure, but they have the money to do it.

Clubs going down is a much bigger issue. You've got to protect them to an extent (they need to protect themselves as well). But you've also got to give the other clubs in the lower divisions a chance over the "parachute clubs".

Personally think premier league abd champions league money should be spread much more evenly through the divisions. But a lot of the people that talk about fairness and the future of the fame don't like that cause it will cost their club.

Agree with this. TV rights should be distributed amongst clubs in the PL based on how wealthy they are. Burnley need their TV rights money more than City who have unlimited funds available. Burnley should get the biggest share of TV rights cash - City the smallest.

 

[SM]

Thats fine for Spurs but people want that to apply to all clubs, including those that are already spending significant amounts on infrastructure.

People are outraged by us spending £130m on fullbacks. If we didnt and spent £30m instead what would be the effect.

£20m or so bigger profit a year for the next 4/5 years and our side wouldnt be as strong. We might get knocked out if the champions league earlier and finish lower in the league (with the resultant reduction in income that comes with it).

Suspect most of the bitching that accompanies our spending doesnt go too far past "we want City to be weaker".

We don't own our ground, our training grounds are third rate, and our Academy is only recently getting investment. I know you don't like talking Hull, but that's just one example of a club that funnelled all it's PL money into signings rather than developing long term.

As Established has pointed out, the PL money is well and good and I'm happy for the clubs turning profit this year for the first time in 20+ years of the competition, but there are plenty of horror stories of clubs that have fallen out of the league.

 

[Zidane98]

Thats fine for Spurs but people want that to apply to all clubs, including those that are already spending significant amounts on infrastructure.

People are outraged by us spending £130m on fullbacks. If we didnt and spent £30m instead what would be the effect.

£20m or so bigger profit a year for the next 4/5 years and our side wouldnt be as strong. We might get knocked out if the champions league earlier and finish lower in the league (with the resultant reduction in income that comes with it).

Suspect most of the bitching that accompanies our spending doesnt go too far past "we want City to be weaker".

Not at all. City fans take it personally when the club has the piss taken our of it for spending 130m on fullbacks but in reality any club would cop it for doing the same thing. You make it sound like you need to spend 130m to win things when it just isn't true at all. This sort of spending is only going to send the prices of fullbacks skyrocketing. What happened to running a club sustainably ? PSG's Neymar bid is a disgrace also. Qatar treats its slave workforce like absolute shit and pays them a pittance all the while trying to buy a footballer for the club it owns for £200m. I find that disgraceful personally.

 

[Magma]

liverpool's owners should spend the 130 million they tried to spend on keita and vvd on helping struggling americans.

 

[moomba]

I don't get pissed off with people going on about our fullbacks. I find it hilarious.

If another club feels obliged to spend more on another fullback because of our spending more fool them.

Perhaps they should apply some common sense principals themselves.

 

[Established1870]

I think a lot would rather it spent on long lasting infrastructure. Precisely what levy mentions.

There's a reason Southampton will spend 20 million on their academy over a one player.

Totally different issues. All concerning but nowt to do with current levels of spending.

Clubs that endanger their futures by spending what they can't afford deserve criticism. But I just don't think clubs are doing that. Spending big for sure, but they have the money to do it.

Clubs going down is a much bigger issue. You've got to protect them to an extent (they need to protect themselves as well). But you've also got to give the other clubs in the lower divisions a chance over the "parachute clubs".

Personally think premier league abd champions league money should be spread much more evenly through the divisions. But a lot of the people that talk about fairness and the future of the fame don't like that cause it will cost their club.

Turning a profit doesn't mean you're healthy financially. A lot of clubs make profits and still have a lot of debt. Barca, Real, Atletico, Sevilla, Valencia, you name them, they all have/had massive and potentially crippling debt. A lot of economists in Spain think 2 years outside of the UCL would financially ruin the big 2.

A lot of EPL clubs are mortgaging their future to stay up in the present. Southampton are the pinnacle of what a club outside the top 6 should strive to be like. They invest in their academy heavily because they know firsthand what happens if you over spend on shit trucks. I'd happily take an owner who isn't financially well off but can set up Sunderland long term like the Saints and others have done.

PL money should be spread more evenly through the divisions yes but UCL money needs to get equally distributed between the other clubs who comprise that competition and not just a seldom few.

 

[FAITH]

liverpool's owners should spend the 130 million they tried to spend on keita and vvd on helping struggling americans.

just buy southampton

 

[Established1870]

Dahoud also only had one year left on his contract. Monchengladbach also don't have the ability to let him leave for free so are forced into accepting a lowish bid for him.

Financially they do because they invest in their academy enough to be able to find another gem if he left and have scouting networks in place to find another Dahoud for a fraction of what he'd normally cost (hey this might've been mentioned before!).

Which super clubs or PL clubs are not living within their means? Of course they spend far more than other clubs, it's because they have much more money than other clubs.

Pretty much every PL club has some sort of financial/potential financial issue. Bournemouth is a great story but if their owner pulls the pin and demands his money back then they're ****ed. There's a reason Palace have been so desperate to avoid the drop (same reason as us).

This is just an argument for implementing a salary cap across European Leagues. At the point where that doesn't exist, you can hardly fault clubs for using their financial muscle to exploit the system? Of course it's going to be unfair, but that's the system.

I'm personally not against a salary cap or a cap on transfer fees spent in one window. UEFA need to do something about the amount of clubs in debt, regardless of what the wanks at Bayern think.

 

[moomba]

I'm not advocating clubs spend what they can't afford. Or go into large debt or ignore infrastructure. Clubs have got to do what's best for them.

But debt in football has been around for a lot longer than the current levels of spending. And in many cases had nothing to do with transfer spending.

 

[SM]

I'm not advocating clubs spend what they can't afford. Or go into large debt or ignore infrastructure. Clubs have got to do what's best for them.

But debt in football has been around for a lot longer than the current levels of spending. And in many cases had nothing to do with transfer spending.

You suggested in one post that it was essentially "Spend money on players" or "Owner pockets money". I was merely pointing out there are other alternatives. If you accept those are just as necessary, then great.

 

[moomba]

You suggested in one post that it was essentially "Spend money on players" or "Owner pockets money". I was merely pointing out there are other alternatives. If you accept those are just as necessary, then great.

In our case we're already spending huge amounts on infrastructure and development. If we spend £30m on fulbacks we get a worse squad and a bigger profit.

Many want the bigger profit for Mansour, and it's not hard to see why. As I mentioned I'd happily see less spending, and cheaper ticket prices across the league. But I don't think that will happen any time soon.

If we were back in the day, under Swales, or Lee or Wardle it would be an entirely different story. In fact I used to defend Wardle on City forums for not spending money on the squad as we were operating under totally different constraints.

 

[largebus]

liverpool's owners should spend the 130 million they tried to spend on keita and vvd on helping struggling americans.

The Red Sox can get ****ed