None are coming in Jan as we won't make a move for any which imho could bite us in the ass but I hope I am wrong.
Lets say we go for a CB in the summer who knows he isn't going to be1st or 2nd choice. He would move because a) he will be paid at least double what he is on now b) he has the chance of winning major honours c) He would be confident enough to displace the top two eventually
I reckon come summer if FSG decided to do another zero transfer window, you would be okay with it as long as we are PSR Champions of the World
You still don’t get it after all this time.
It’s not about “winning the transfer window” or “best net spend” or being “PSR champions”.
There are 3 ways you can improve your squad:
1. Buy a new player (eg, Chiesa)
2. Coach the players you have to be better (eg Gravenberch)
3. Bring a young player through and play him (eg McConnell or Danns)
Each has risk and each has reward, but only one costs a fuckload more than the others. That doesn’t means it’s not necessary - a Quick Look at the team will tell you that about 60-70% of our match day squad were bought and of that you could that about 30-40% were bought and improved (a bit subjective that one because you could argue Salah was bought and improved - you could even argue that fir Virgil), with threat being either at a high level before and maintained or n some cases dropped off (not hard to pick that one).
We also gave owners who, and it’s not about the rights and wrongs of this, have made it very clear that we can spend whatever we make, but we have to be self-sustaining - they’ll fund capital projects (because they retain value) but they’ll not fund player purchases.
So that means we have to have a strategy.
Guess what - that strategy doesn’t involve buying every player that has a YouTube clip.
Our strategy is clear :
1. We try to attract top young talent under the age of 18 that cost very little and can be developed (for Binomials sake, it’s hard to sign players from overseas under the age of 18 because you can run into child trafficking problems very quickly).
2. We try to sign players aged 21-24 that have established their playing credentials and have a high ceiling, but represent value.
3. We’ll sign players aged 24-27 if we absolutely think they’re essential, best available and obtainable without being stupid.
What we tend to avoid is 18-21 because they’re usually high value, but haven’t quite established themselves so therefore also high risk and players 27+ because there’s a higher probability they’ve peaked, will diminish as players and are likely to be high cost - again it’s high risk.
That’s not to say we won’t buy the players above - we’re just very much less likely to.
So we narrow down who we want to buy and then we figure out if the cost and benefit of bringing that player in outweighs the chance we think a current player can get better or one of our kids could step up.
That, to me, while boring as fuck, is a really sensible approach to transfers that I’m comfortable with - particularly when I look at the teams that have splashed cash left, right and centre only to win fuck all and find that the kids the had to let go to balance the books are better than the expensive shit they bought in.
