General Transfer Rumour Discussion Thread

[Jordinho]

Why? Surely if we release him then he's on a free transfer and could be registered at a later date. Isn't there a later cut off or maybe not one at all for registering free agents. I'm sure I've seen other clubs do this.

He would have had to be without a contract when the window closed to be considered a free agent. Is lower league loan or nothing now.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

Yes, one season in the CL did not necessarily improve us that much. However, how about two seasons? Three? In the past six years, we have qualified for the CL once and have been within three points of doing so twice. While one run in the CL isn't a game-changer...the knock-on effects of a fairly consistent run in the CL cannot be underestimated, and might well have easily repaid the investment that would have been required to secure that run, with us being no worse off for it than we are now.

Yes, when it comes to progress we have adopted the most risk-free, cautious, hesitant way of pursuing it. That's essentially my problem with it, Gazz.

Yes, but I think you're missing my point. We make Champions League and have net spend £50m. Whoever missed out spends £100m. We spend £100m, they spend £200m. We just cannot compete with that and to do so is really risky because when I spend that £50m I could be getting a VdV or I could be getting a Soldado or anywhere in between. Man United and the rest can stomach these failures. We cannot. If you haven't done so, I'd recommend that you read "Sick as a parrot" by Chris Horrie. It shows what borrowing to buy players achieves, especially when done with a stadium expansion. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Yes, but I think you're missing my point. We make Champions League and have net spend £50m. Whoever missed out spends £100m. We spend £100m, they spend £200m. We just cannot compete with that and to do so is really risky because when I spend that £50m I could be getting a VdV or I could be getting a Soldado or anywhere in between. Man United and the rest can stomach these failures. We cannot. If you haven't done so, I'd recommend that you read "Sick as a parrot" by Chris Horrie. It shows what borrowing to buy players achieves, especially when done with a stadium expansion. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

But that's a) not necessarily the most accurate representation of the type of spending I'd like to see us pursue, and b) not necessarily true, either: Emirates Marketing Project spent a 100 million and made the CL in 2010-2011. Yet, we finished in 4th in 2011 2012 while sticking to a negative net spend, going above Chelsea, who'd also spent a shedload. Where we failed there is in spending to solidify our chase for even higher environs (3rd, and who knows, perhaps even 1st if we'd dared to go for it in that wonderful January), and then letting hateful lady luck screw us over. We then finished a point off the CL spots in 2012 2013, despite again having a negative net spend. It is only after that that we ceased to compete and fell away even as we stuck to our increasingly negative net spending. It isn't like we needed a hundred million to break that glass ceiling -we were inches away, and then fell away again into the morass of the EL spots/upper mid-table. But we did need investment, a bit of risk (hardly Leeds-like, but a bit of risk nonetheless). And we didn't get it.

Thank you for the recommendation, even if, again, it isn't exactly about what I would like to see done. I'm almost done with the ton of books I picked up last autumn, so I may well take you up on that recommendation.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

But that's a) not necessarily the most accurate representation of the type of spending I'd like to see us pursue, and b) not necessarily true, either: Emirates Marketing Project spent a 100 million and made the CL in 2010-2011. Yet, we finished in 4th in 2011 2012 while sticking to a negative net spend, going above Chel53a, who'd also spent a shedload. Where we failed there is in spending to solidify our chase for even higher environs (3rd, and who knows, perhaps even 1st if we'd dared to go for it in that wonderful January), and then letting hateful lady luck screw us over. We then finished a point off the CL spots in 2012 2013, despite again having a negative net spend. It is only after that that we ceased to compete and fell away even as we stuck to our increasingly negative net spending. It isn't like we needed a hundred million to break that glass ceiling -we were inches away, and then fell away again into the morass of the EL spots/upper mid-table. But we did need investment, a bit of risk (hardly Leeds-like, but a bit of risk nonetheless). And we didn't get it.

Thank you for the recommendation, even if, again, it isn't exactly about what I would like to see done. I'm almost done with the ton of books I picked up last autumn, so I may well take you up on that recommendation.

No I understand that. I guess, it doesn't matter what we spend, the others will always spend more and that's the point I am trying to make. We can take that risk and spend £3m or £20m more, it doesn't really matter because you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever we bring in is someone that the established top 4 don't want, and that they will go out and spend £60m or £100m if they think that their position in the top 4 is under threat. We can get into the CL like we have done in the past, but actually as soon as we do whichever team that has lost out goes on a massive spending spree. That's what Liverpool are doing now. That's what Man United are doing.

For whatever risk we take on signing a player, be it £3m or £20m, there is no guarantee that it would work as we could get a Soldado for every Berbatov that we unearth.

My point is there is not another club that has challenged the top 4 like we have. Chelsea got in with Abramovich and at that time it was a top 4 of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man United and Liverpool. It remained that way (with only Everton challenging IIRC). Then we came along even after Emirates Marketing Project spent however much they did. When we beat Emirates Marketing Project to the top 4, what did they do. They spend another huge amount that we simply could not compete with. If by whatever chance we had kept them at bay, they would have spent an even bigger sum of money. Out of that competition, we would always be the weakest financially and so the most likely to fall out because their wealth is limitless.

I understand that you're not saying let's go huge. But we have to remember that any negative net spend is a debt that we will have to pay because the stadium is happening. Some may argue what's an extra £10m, £20m, £30m when you're more than likely going to have a £300m debt. I say a hell of a lot of difference. At least with a stadium, it is not going to turn up tinkled to training, experience Jiu-Jiu, suffer a massive dip in form, or want to leave in a year because it's feeling homesick. It's the guaranteed way of getting those returns to buy the better players. Yes it's long term, yes it's frustrating as hell and yes it takes the romance out of football, but it's just the way it is.

And here's the killer. The sooner we get the stadium, the sooner Levy leaves and gets bought out! That should get you Levy haters on side!!

 

[billyiddo]

I've made that very same argument before Gazza, though probably not as eloquent!

 

[Moby]

so, just on my slow train back home from the city after a massive TDD off line - looks like we did fudge all.

Put me right - we obviously paid the few extra million to get Berahino in as thats a no brainer and we'd be screwed without another striker - only question in my mind is will he play with, or alternate with Pato????

Who is replacing Dier in DMC next week - Presume Wanyama at £25m-odd was quickly tied up my midday, but did we strecth to the extra £73m to bring Witsel in as well for cover/competition?

Top 4 this season now, easah!!!!

 

[billyiddo]

Take a seat Jon, I have some bad news...

 

[Jordinho]

Take a seat Jon, I have some bad news...

I think we lost him to Natalie Sawyer's boobs.

 

[DubaiSpur]

No I understand that. I guess, it doesn't matter what we spend, the others will always spend more and that's the point I am trying to make. We can take that risk and spend £3m or £20m more, it doesn't really matter because you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever we bring in is someone that the established top 4 don't want, and that they will go out and spend £60m or £100m if they think that their position in the top 4 is under threat. We can get into the CL like we have done in the past, but actually as soon as we do whichever team that has lost out goes on a massive spending spree. That's what Liverpool are doing now. That's what Man United are doing.

Well, I'd disagree with that. The key is targeted spending, in my opinion - buying players a manager wants and knows he can fit into his system in a short space of time. Random, flailing spending (Chelsea with Torres, for example) isn't likely to be effective given the buying power of the sides above us, but a quality player or two bought by the manager (and fully wanted as the manager's ideal choice) to fit into a system that already mostly works (Harry's system, and even AVB's system in 12-13, for example) can make all the difference in the world even given the limitless spending power of our rivals.

For whatever risk we take on signing a player, be it £3m or £20m, there is no guarantee that it would work as we could get a Soldado for every Berbatov that we unearth.

True, but that risk is minimised if it's a player the manager knows and wants as his first choice, surely.

My point is there is not another club that has challenged the top 4 like we have. Chel53a got in with Abramovich and at that time it was a top 4 of Ar5ena1, Chel53a, Man United and Liverpool. It remained that way (with only Everton challenging IIRC). Then we came along even after Emirates Marketing Project spent however much they did. When we beat Emirates Marketing Project to the top 4, what did they do. They spend another huge amount that we simply could not compete with. If by whatever chance we had kept them at bay, they would have spent an even bigger sum of money. Out of that competition, we would always be the weakest financially and so the most likely to fall out because their wealth is limitless..

Yes, we did challenge the top four consistently in an unprecedented manner (although Everton did make the CL the same number of times we did, and finished 4th once while we only did twice) for a certain period. And, to an extent, the risk-free way Levy brought us up to the position we were in in 2008 has to be credited for that subsequent period we spent challenging the top four, undoubtedly. However the build-up to that period saw Levy spend a lot of money on players the manager wanted, as the January 2009 and summer 2009 windows demonstrated, during which we spent a hefty amount (net, nearly 40 million pounds, iirc) to bring in Defoe, Crouch, Palacios, Keane, Kranjcar, Kaboul, Bassong and the Kyles.It was because a poor league position forced his hand...but I firmly believe that that mixture of Comolli's astute buys and Redknapp's preferred players that emerged blinking into the 2009-2010 season was and remains probably Levy's finest creation during his time at Spurs, and that this creation was something that was partly deliberate, but also partly a creature of circumstances.

Yes, we can be and are outspent on a regular basis by those above us, but that period did show that we could put together a team that could challenge the top four and displace some of them with some targeted and not-so-targeted investment, even as we were outspent by the others (City and Liverpool outspent us in 2009, Chelsea outspent us in 2011/2012). And, we were also agonizingly close to overcoming the one team that WE could outspend - Arsenal, during their lean years. The risk-free methods we used to get to 2008 did take us forward - my point is that the splurge in 2009 took us forward a whole lot faster. But the lessons of that splurge weren't taken to heart, imo, and we shrunk away from doing it again using this inability to compete financially as an excuse to not do so. Yes, we cannot compete financially long-term with these teams. However, we can still compete on the pitch with comparatively smaller investments if they're the right ones, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, and if they're made at key times in support of the right people.

I understand that you're not saying let's go huge. But we have to remember that any negative net spend is a debt that we will have to pay because the stadium is happening. Some may argue what's an extra £10m, £20m, £30m when you're more than likely going to have a £300m debt. I say a hell of a lot of difference. At least with a stadium, it is not going to turn up tinkleed to training, experience Jiu-Jiu, suffer a massive dip in form, or want to leave in a year because it's feeling homesick. It's the guaranteed way of getting those returns to buy the better players. Yes it's long term, yes it's frustrating as hell and yes it takes the romance out of football, but it's just the way it is.

Like you said, it's long term. The thing is, we could have had both those returns and the ones from more regular participation in the CL if we'd done a bit more, that's all. No one's asking to match the 100 million spent every year by City or United or Chelsea...and I think everyone realises (or hopes) that the stadium will eventually get us to a higher level once it's done, even if it did take some 19 years from initial conception to fruition (and will take a few more years to pay off after that). But we could have had more than what we're heading into the stadium with, with just a few more risks. Yes, buying players is a risk, like you pointed out above. Yes, spending more than you make is a risk. However, like I said above, a) those risks can be mitigated, b) those risks aren't large ones for a club our size and with our profile, and c) those risks can jump us ahead of our rivals (albeit temporarily, perhaps) even if they're smaller fiscally than the ones our rivals take, if made in a targeted manner. I think we missed out on opportunities by not taking those risks, and I think the club's slow rise could have been quickened if we didn't stick to the absolutely no-risk option all the time, that's all.

And here's the killer. The sooner we get the stadium, the sooner Levy leaves and gets bought out! That should get you Levy haters on side!!

Hah! Like I said, he'll leave with my thanks for a job somewhat well done, even if he made many mistakes and lost many opportunities while going about it. Solid, 6.5 out of ten. Could have done better, but nothing to be overly ashamed of.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

Well, I'd disagree with that. The key is targeted spending, in my opinion - buying players a manager wants and knows he can fit into his system in a short space of time. Random, flailing spending (Chel53a with Torres, for example) isn't likely to be effective given the buying power of the sides above us, but a quality player or two bought by the manager (and fully wanted as the manager's ideal choice) to fit into a system that already mostly works (Harry's system, and even AVB's system in 12-13, for example) can make all the difference in the world even given the limitless spending power of our rivals.

The key there is targeted spending. It's harder now getting those decisions right, look at our recent record. I really do think that is why Levy has brought in Mitchell and his team because he is wanting to minimise the risk of spending in transfers. And as someone else has said already, Levy was prepared to go into the red this window, but just couldn't do it.

I think all this system stuff is going to be by the by now. The reason being is that 4-2-3-1 is here to stay for a number of different managers. It's what is played for our youngsters and unless there is another tactical revoloution (could be!) then actually Levy is seeking to avoid having to go through turmoil each and every time there is a change in manager.

True, but that risk is minimised if it's a player the manager knows and wants as his first choice, surely.

Yes, but despite what AVB says, Soldado was his! Manager's have been known to make mistakes and that mistake is doubly compounded if it is a "risk" signing. By "risk" signing I mean the spending beyond your mean type spending that we've been talking about.

Yes, we did challenge the top four consistently in an unprecedented manner (although Everton did make the CL the same number of times we did, and finished 4th once while we only did twice) for a certain period. And, to an extent, the risk-free way Levy brought us up to the position we were in in 2008 has to be credited for that subsequent period we spent challenging the top four, undoubtedly. However the build-up to that period saw Levy spend a lot of money on players the manager wanted, as the January 2009 and summer 2009 windows demonstrated, during which we spent a hefty amount (net, nearly 40 million pounds, iirc) to bring in Defoe, Crouch, Palacios, Keane, Kranjcar, Kaboul, Bassong and the Kyles.It was because a poor league position forced his hand...but I firmly believe that that mixture of Comolli's astute buys and Redknapp's preferred players that emerged blinking into the 2009-2010 season was and remains probably Levy's finest creation during his time at Spurs, and that this creation was something that was partly deliberate, but also partly a creature of circumstances.

Yes, we can be and are outspent on a regular basis by those above us, but that period did show that we could put together a team that could challenge the top four and displace some of them with some targeted and not-so-targeted investment, even as we were outspent by the others (City and Liverpool outspent us in 2009, Chel53a outspent us in 2011/2012). And, we were also agonizingly close to overcoming the one team that WE could outspend - Ar5ena1, during their lean years. The risk-free methods we used to get to 2008 did take us forward - my point is that the splurge in 2009 took us forward a whole lot faster. But the lessons of that splurge weren't taken to heart, imo, and we shrunk away from doing it again using this inability to compete financially as an excuse to not do so. Yes, we cannot compete financially long-term with these teams. However, we can still compete on the pitch with comparatively smaller investments if they're the right ones, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, and if they're made at key times in support of the right people.

I'm not sure that we could have outspent Arsenal, but we cannot really prove to each other that that is the case. Those signings of Defoe et al, I agree with you. That mix of player and Redknapp was the best team that we have seen for a long time. It was made even better with VdV. That period did show that we could put together a team that could challenge the top 4. But the top 4 has moved on massively since then. They've now got £50m players, £30m players and huge amount of youngsters out on loan. Those youngsters were typically the Modric/Bale signings that we made to keep up. Every year they have got further and further away from us and that's not just because we haven't spent, but also because we couldn't keep up with that spend, imho.

Like you said, it's long term. The thing is, we could have had both those returns and the ones from more regular participation in the CL if we'd done a bit more, that's all. No one's asking to match the 100 million spent every year by City or United or Chel53a...and I think everyone realises (or hopes) that the stadium will eventually get us to a higher level once it's done, even if it did take some 19 years from initial conception to fruition (and will take a few more years to pay off after that). But we could have had more than what we're heading into the stadium with, with just a few more risks. Yes, buying players is a risk, like you pointed out above. Yes, spending more than you make is a risk. However, like I said above, a) those risks can be mitigated, b) those risks aren't large ones for a club our size and with our profile, and c) those risks can jump us ahead of our rivals (albeit temporarily, perhaps) even if they're smaller fiscally than the ones our rivals take, if made in a targeted manner. I think we missed out on opportunities by not taking those risks, and I think the club's slow rise could have been quickened if we didn't stick to the absolutely no-risk option all the time, that's all.

I think it will take less time for us to pay off our stadium for 2 reasons; the NFL deal and the new TV deal. Yes, we could have more but when you're leveraged any mistake that previously would have been OK is exacerbated. Levy is playing it safe and I actually applaud him for that. He's being an effective custodian of the club. Any increase in risk, means that the stadium absolutely positively has to be delivered to plan and budget. It puts more pressure on achieving the stadium build. I don't want to sound condascending, but given we haven't yet sorted financing for the stadium, a £25m error now could have a big effect on the interest that we pay on any debt for the stadium.

Hah! Like I said, he'll leave with my thanks for a job somewhat well done, even if he made many mistakes and lost many opportunities while going about it. Solid, 6.5 out of ten. Could have done better, but nothing to be overly ashamed of.

I'd give him a 8 so not that far away at all!

 

[Hemant]

While we all toss each other off with our beloved leader's prudent spending and Gathering profits for Enic, we still don't appear to have any striker support for Kane, GHod forbid he gets injured, or a DM who knows what he is doing.
Something even Stevie Wonder knew about 3 months ago.

As for going into a debt because we have a positive net spend is pulling the wool over fans eyes, as it conveniently neglects to mention the TV revenue, which has empowered The likes of Stoke to spend and WBA to tell us where to go.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

While we all toss each other off with our beloved leader's prudent spending and Gathering profits for Enic, we still don't appear to have any striker support for Kane, GHod forbid he gets injured, or a DM who knows what he is doing.
Something even Stevie Wonder knew about 3 months ago.

As for going into a debt because we have a positive net spend is pulling the wool over fans eyes, as it conveniently neglects to mention the TV revenue, which has empowered The likes of Stoke to spend and WBA to tell us where to go.

Actually what you are neglecting to mention is that the likes of Stoke and WBA do not have a stadium to pay for as well. It also neglects to mention that we have spent to date over £100m on the training complex and the stadium.

So when you next go and suck the rooster of some clown shoe that is an expert at spending other people's money, we will still have a well run club. GHod forbid it takes 3 more years to build the stadium because some fudgewit who wants to keep up with the Jones' thinks we should spend £50m on the next Soldado and Paulinho.

 

[DubaiSpur]

The key there is targeted spending. It's harder now getting those decisions right, look at our recent record. I really do think that is why Levy has brought in Mitchell and his team because he is wanting to minimise the risk of spending in transfers. And as someone else has said already, Levy was prepared to go into the red this window, but just couldn't do it.

I think all this system stuff is going to be by the by now. The reason being is that 4-2-3-1 is here to stay for a number of different managers. It's what is played for our youngsters and unless there is another tactical revoloution (could be!) then actually Levy is seeking to avoid having to go through turmoil each and every time there is a change in manager.

If we did go down to the wire for Berahino with a full willingness to go (well) into the red to secure him, then that's admirable, and it's exactly what I've been advocating for when I talk about targeted spending. If (if) the player was sufficiently high on Mitchell and Poch's list to warrant that effort, of course, it's the sort of thing I'd like to see us doing, whether or not we succeed. Targeted spending, done right. Of course, we'd probably make that money back (at least some of it) in January or the next summer, but that's not pertinent to the act itself: the act of spending what's needed to secure a player the manager really wants and feels can be put to good use straightaway.

And as for the system stuff, yes and no. I agree with you in that Levy is looking to settle on a consistent pattern of play that he wants all our managers to adhere to: however, I think it could go one of two ways. The first option is that he settles on the 4-2-3-1 as a basic shape for all our managers to adhere to, which simplifies purchasing decisions and trends (i.e, the players will all be tailored to fit in a 4-2-3-1) and youth-team intake and training to a great degree but also allows flexibility when it comes to the style of play employed within that formation: i.e, lower tempo with greater ball retention, counter-attacking and direct, or a high line and a higher press a la Poch. Option two is that he settles on the style of play to be employed by the club (fast, technical passing and relentless gegenpressing a la Leverkusen) but leaves the manager to decide on the formation to employ in pursuit of that style of play, which again, simplifies youth-team training and lines of succession as well as purchasing decisions, but from a different angle (the players will all fit an archetype and possess certain qualities ,without necessarily being capable of playing in the same positions). I don't think he'll settle on the 4-2-3-1 high-pressing style as a whole, because that limits our tactical options, and thus denies the manager the flexibility he needs when trying to break into the top four on limited resources.

Yes, but despite what AVB says, Soldado was his! Manager's have been known to make mistakes and that mistake is doubly compounded if it is a "risk" signing. By "risk" signing I mean the spending beyond your mean type spending that we've been talking about.

Yes, but Soldado wasn't AVB's first target - Villa was (and I remember the sequence of events that summer quite clearly). Yes, spend beyond your means on the player the manager really wants - but if you can't get him, then spending that amount on someone he's not totally sold on is indeed a risk and shouldn't generally be done unless time permits no other approach. There will of course still be risks involved (a manager wanting a second choice enough to request high bids, despite not being as comfortable with the prospect of him arriving as he was with his first choice, for example), but that's why I mentioned that the risks can only be mitigated, never completely erased.

I'm not sure that we could have outspent Ar5ena1, but we cannot really prove to each other that that is the case. Those signings of Defoe et al, I agree with you. That mix of player and Redknapp was the best team that we have seen for a long time. It was made even better with VdV. That period did show that we could put together a team that could challenge the top 4. But the top 4 has moved on massively since then. They've now got £50m players, £30m players and huge amount of youngsters out on loan. Those youngsters were typically the Modric/Bale signings that we made to keep up. Every year they have got further and further away from us and that's not just because we haven't spent, but also because we couldn't keep up with that spend, imho.

Perhaps things have changed now, but it isn't like our income str.eams have stood still either. TV money has ballooned since the 2009-2010 days, and permits us to spend far larger fees (22 million, 25 million, 26 million, etcetera) than seemed practical in 2009. And that's with our stadium under construction, and with a no net spend policy. Ergo, I don't think the gap has increased that much relative to what it was in 2009-2010.

I think it will take less time for us to pay off our stadium for 2 reasons; the NFL deal and the new TV deal. Yes, we could have more but when you're leveraged any mistake that previously would have been OK is exacerbated. Levy is playing it safe and I actually applaud him for that. He's being an effective custodian of the club. Any increase in risk, means that the stadium absolutely positively has to be delivered to plan and budget. It puts more pressure on achieving the stadium build. I don't want to sound condascending, but given we haven't yet sorted financing for the stadium, a £25m error now could have a big effect on the interest that we pay on any debt for the stadium.

Yeah, I don't think we'll be paying it off for as long as Arsenal did the Emirates, but there will still be a three to five year period of repaying the immediate loans taken out post-build, imo, as well as a period of building up the cash reserves to hedge against the prospect of the longer-term disruptions in income st.reams and the attendant effects on our longer-term loans. And as for the risk involved with our leveraged status, well, the prospective benefits of a greater commercial profile, more TV exposure and a more pronounced rise in our football status could offset that risk, imo: and that's without taking into account the pure income gained from finishing higher up the table + a few more CL campaigns (which would likely be used to offset the increased spending + greater player wages due to CL bonuses anyway). However, I will concede that the skyrocketing construction prices in London have likely already put a strain on our budget projections for the build, so your point seems at least a bit more agreeable.

I'd give him a 8 so not that far away at all!

Spare the rod, spoil the chil...err, hard-headed chairman of a multi-million pound enterprise. Don't let him off so easily, Gazz.

 

[Gazza]

Actually what you are neglecting to mention is that the likes of Stoke and WBA do not have a stadium to pay for as well. It also neglects to mention that we have spent to date over £100m on the training complex and the stadium.

So when you next go and suck the **** of some clown shoe that is an expert at spending other people's money, we will still have a well run club. GHod forbid it takes 3 more years to build the stadium because some fudgewit who wants to keep up with the Jones' thinks we should spend £50m on the next Soldado and Paulinho.

so why chase saido and axel if we were trying to save a few bob for the stadium?

Levy is a disgrace in the transfer market and you know it. Levy thinks he can rock up at the last minute and make an offer that teams shudder at.

It may work once in a while but his strategy is not obviously working for player recruitment.

I bet poch gets sacked on the back of poor results due to not having enough resources.

Same story again I'm afraid.

 

[Baleforce]

so why chase saido and axel if we were trying to save a few bob for the stadium?

Levy is a disgrace in the transfer market and you know it. Levy thinks he can rock up at the last minute and make an offer that teams shudder at.

It may work once in a while but his strategy is not obviously working for player recruitment.

I bet poch gets sacked on the back of poor results due to not having enough resources.

Same story again I'm afraid.

what about all the players we signed before the last day of the transfer window, do they not count?

 

[E3zzle]

What about Pizarro? He's a free agent...

 

[Gutter Boy]

What about Pizarro? He's a free agent...

Free agents still can't register till January

 

[E3zzle]

Free agents still can't register till January

Doesn't that only apply when they're released after the window closes?

 

[rosenthal]

If they were free agents before transfer deadline, then they can sign at any time. As long as new club has space in their 25 man squad which we have.

Sadly Berbatov is now out of the picture ..... PAOK

 

[alekaras]

While we all toss each other off with our beloved leader's prudent spending and Gathering profits for Enic, we still don't appear to have any striker support for Kane, GHod forbid he gets injured, or a DM who knows what he is doing.
Something even Stevie Wonder knew about 3 months ago.

As for going into a debt because we have a positive net spend is pulling the wool over fans eyes, as it conveniently neglects to mention the TV revenue, which has empowered The likes of Stoke to spend and WBA to tell us where to go.

Has Dier been that atrocious and I missed it?