that's not true, up to a few years ago we were one of the most feared teams in europe, most noteably with away wins are real and barca.
it may be a sell to buy summer
- Thread starter spider-Neil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
that's not true, up to a few years ago we were one of the most feared teams in europe, most noteably with away wins are real and barca.
Yes, we've had exceptions, but it's getting longer and longer since we've been a dominant force, and longer and longer since we've won the league.
I still think we're a respected club, but the days of us being a club that all the very top players would love to join are gone. We are now in the market for undervalued players, and up and coming players.
and then we pushed manu to within 4 points of winning the league, having the highest runner up total ever in the league.
Couple of years ago we were getting frustrated by loosing to Lyon and Fiorentina, now are getting frustrated by loosing to Wigan and QPR 😕
what did you expect? they bought a business and businesses need to pay for themselves. they have put in 300m + of their own money to purchase the club and remove debt so why should they pay a PENNY for transfers. we spend millions on youth, and in the past three transfer windows they have spent 100m +, so why should they invests more? why have an academy at all? what is the point of having scouts? if the yanks said right here, right now that they aren't going to invest any money above and beyond what we earn ourselves and the new stadium, what that make them bad owners?
The argument that the owners haven't invested in transfers doesn't really work for me at the moment.
The only time when the argument about net spend really works is when we are selling players we would rather keep or want to stay. As far as we know that hasn't really been the case.
They made over 100 million available for transfers. Yes, 70 or so million came from sales, but look at those sales - most of it came from Torres, who wanted to leave. A lot of the other players who were sold/released were players we didn't want much anyway.
You can only criticise the owners for lack of funding if you know that there were players who the manager wanted to keep but was told to sell to raise funds, or if you know that there were players we wanted but the owners would not pay the fee, so we had to go for a cheaper option. We know none of these things.
The only time when the argument about net spend really works is when we are selling players we would rather keep or want to stay. As far as we know that hasn't really been the case.
They made over 100 million available for transfers. Yes, 70 or so million came from sales, but look at those sales - most of it came from Torres, who wanted to leave. A lot of the other players who were sold/released were players we didn't want much anyway.
You can only criticise the owners for lack of funding if you know that there were players who the manager wanted to keep but was told to sell to raise funds, or if you know that there were players we wanted but the owners would not pay the fee, so we had to go for a cheaper option. We know none of these things.
I always wondered if Adam was a purchase intended for one season, then replace him with a better player this summer with KD no doubt hoping we'd have the champions league pull to get a better player in. Anyway this summer I just hope we get rid of the likes of Cole and Aquifa who're on loan and also sell Maxi, Adam and maybe Kuyt and replace them with two first team players and maybe one other squadie. Next season I honestly believe we'll see a lot more from Henderson and Carroll hopefully see more of Coates playing. My big big fear remains over Reina, although saying that, on this seasons form he's hardly irreplaceable, hopefully his form has been a reality check for him and deterrent for is suiters.
what?! even if we accepted your reasoning on the usefulness of analysing by net spend, which i don't, £62m of the income came from important first-team players, who - money being no object - we quite obviously would rather have kept.
IMO the main problem with net spend is when players are sold for clearly over or under inflated prices, such as Torres or Owen, which means the manager can get undeserved praise/criticism for things somewhat beyond his control. otherwise it's always better to acknowledge that selling almost any player involves some sort of cost, whether it's immediately obvious or not.
My point was that we don't know what the owners were prepared to fund in the transfer market, we only know that they DID spend over 100 million on players.
If we KNEW that this money had come from the sale of players who we wanted to keep, who wanted to stay but were forced to sell then yes, that kinda lessens the extent to which they have invested in the club. But we don't know if that was the case at all, and in some cases we can be pretty sure that players wanted to leave and others we wanted rid of anyway.
We also do not know if anything else was even requested by the manager in terms of transfer funding. It could be that he got everything he wanted for 100 million, in which case the net spend is pretty much an irrelevance. We also have no idea if, say the Torres deal had fallen through at the last possible minute, the owners would still have gone ahead and spent the same amount of money. Sure, they may not have done, but they could have done. We don't know.
As I said, if you are in a situation where the owners of the club are telling the manager that he has to get rid of players he may want to keep before he can buy others, or they are saying that certain targets are well out of price range and he has to look for someone cheaper then yes, net spend is something worth looking at. But if the situation is that the transfer targets are mostly being signed, and the ones that are going out either want to leave or aren't very good, then net spend figures don't really mean as much
If we KNEW that this money had come from the sale of players who we wanted to keep, who wanted to stay but were forced to sell then yes, that kinda lessens the extent to which they have invested in the club. But we don't know if that was the case at all, and in some cases we can be pretty sure that players wanted to leave and others we wanted rid of anyway.
We also do not know if anything else was even requested by the manager in terms of transfer funding. It could be that he got everything he wanted for 100 million, in which case the net spend is pretty much an irrelevance. We also have no idea if, say the Torres deal had fallen through at the last possible minute, the owners would still have gone ahead and spent the same amount of money. Sure, they may not have done, but they could have done. We don't know.
As I said, if you are in a situation where the owners of the club are telling the manager that he has to get rid of players he may want to keep before he can buy others, or they are saying that certain targets are well out of price range and he has to look for someone cheaper then yes, net spend is something worth looking at. But if the situation is that the transfer targets are mostly being signed, and the ones that are going out either want to leave or aren't very good, then net spend figures don't really mean as much
ok, fair enough, i got the wrong end of the stick. you're right, we don't know. but there's plenty of supporting evidence, for example when Comolli said how impressed he was with the owners for trusting them to go out and sign the players first before recouping money only later on in the window. that suggests that bringing money in to balance some of the spending was a stated part of his remit.
It's hard to tell. Last summer the remit was to strengthen the squad whilst clearing out a mass of wage (non) earners, and we were allowed to do the first before the second, which was a real gamble seeing as how happy those players were to sit out their contracts. It's going to be different this summer, or ought to be.
bottom line is we can't keep spending money hand over fist and having a huge turnover of players and then moaning when none of them bed in, at some point we are going to have to do better with the players we've purchased.
look at aqua for example, 20 million, have we in any way shape or form got value for money from him? is aqua a shit player?
kenny and comolli asked for 35m for carroll and got it and he is in and out of the side. if the owners told them to fuck off the next time they asked for money for a striker you couldn't blame them. how about you make the most of the striker you spent a fortune on?
we seem like we don't know what the fuck we're doing sometimes.
we spend 35m on a striker who doesn't seem to fit any tactic we utilise.
we have an aging centre back on 90K and have a centre back who was the copa america young player of the tournament on the bench.
we have the promising robinson waiting in the wings with enrique getting worse by the game and then complain of tiredness.
we buy henderson who excelled through the middle and play him on the wing.
we buy downing to provide service for carroll and they hardly play together.
I could go on but wont.
there is no way on this fucking earth we are getting the best out of our players and we're going to go back to the owners cup in hand asking for more money than what we earn? they'd be justified in telling us to fuck off.
look at aqua for example, 20 million, have we in any way shape or form got value for money from him? is aqua a shit player?
kenny and comolli asked for 35m for carroll and got it and he is in and out of the side. if the owners told them to fuck off the next time they asked for money for a striker you couldn't blame them. how about you make the most of the striker you spent a fortune on?
we seem like we don't know what the fuck we're doing sometimes.
we spend 35m on a striker who doesn't seem to fit any tactic we utilise.
we have an aging centre back on 90K and have a centre back who was the copa america young player of the tournament on the bench.
we have the promising robinson waiting in the wings with enrique getting worse by the game and then complain of tiredness.
we buy henderson who excelled through the middle and play him on the wing.
we buy downing to provide service for carroll and they hardly play together.
I could go on but wont.
there is no way on this fucking earth we are getting the best out of our players and we're going to go back to the owners cup in hand asking for more money than what we earn? they'd be justified in telling us to fuck off.
If this is true, it is really depressing
oh go on...
pleasssssseee...
Its all about the tax baby!
With Beckhams law repealed in Spain meaning any decent player on more than £10k a week has to pay 52% instead of 24% tax and the rest of the eurozone scrabbling for pennys down the side of the sofa combined with our top rate being reduced to 45% from next year I think we can expect a massive influx of Continental talent in the premier league this summer. Whether any reaches our club is up for debate. The watchword is amortisation - the total cost of a player over the course of his contract, fees and wages combined. We have a budget and its going to be stuck to so saved wages on a player leaving must be taken into account, cant see many leaving us apart from Cole Aquilani Aurelio and Maxi who are not going to bring in much, especially as two of them are out of contract in the summer. Transfer kitty is not relevant so much these days
With Beckhams law repealed in Spain meaning any decent player on more than £10k a week has to pay 52% instead of 24% tax and the rest of the eurozone scrabbling for pennys down the side of the sofa combined with our top rate being reduced to 45% from next year I think we can expect a massive influx of Continental talent in the premier league this summer. Whether any reaches our club is up for debate. The watchword is amortisation - the total cost of a player over the course of his contract, fees and wages combined. We have a budget and its going to be stuck to so saved wages on a player leaving must be taken into account, cant see many leaving us apart from Cole Aquilani Aurelio and Maxi who are not going to bring in much, especially as two of them are out of contract in the summer. Transfer kitty is not relevant so much these days
I'll post it in Sunnys Insider forum. Membership is just £10 plus a free copy of my forthcoming biography "An Arrogant Cock in The Kop"
There was a twitter rumour yesterday that the owners would have to sell either LFC or the Red Sox. Is it anything to do with that Sunny?
I'm bound to secrecy. However, the David Villa thing is true. I'm told a mate of a mate had photographic evidence. Honest guv.
Very posh!
FUUUUCKKK!!!!!!
- Status
