General Transfer Rumour Discussion Thread

[THFC39]

Cabaye and Clasie both play in Bentaleb's position/role. Bentaleb is a better player than both of them, IMO. Or at the very least it's not a role in the squad/team we're looking to buy in, as if you're talking the need of backing up the recycler/play-maker position, then we have Carroll back in the fold and Winks.

Imbula. He could have been an asset, but we don't know what went on with him. He was linked with a lot of big clubs, like Inter, yet ended up at Porto. His father made some derogatory comments about players moving to clubs like Chel53a and ruining their careers, so it's possible that only Porto gave him the guaranteed first-team starter assurances he would have wanted. Any midfielder coming in with us is going to have to fight to keep his place, as we will want to give Alli, Winks and others game time.

Suarez, well that is a strange one on your list. What does he offer that Stambouli didn't do you think?

Ayew. What does he bring that Chadli doesn't? He's not got the explosive pace that we appear to be going after? We have quite a few wide-forwards with moderate pace who get forward and score the odd goal. So what? It looks like what we're really after is explosive pace and goal threat that can also play upfront. Don't see how Ayew fits the bill here. Konoplyanka- Loads of clubs looked at him and passed. Why do you think that is?

Cabaye and Clasie both would replace Mason as all-around midfielders capable of creative forward passing, good tackling, and in Cabaye's case, he would've given us a player with lots of high level experience and end product (excellent set piece taker). Let's see how they do at Southampton and Palace this season and we can revisit this debate.

As for Suarez, he is a far better, more accomplished player than Stambouli. A better tackler, a better reader of the game, a better passer of the ball, and lots of top level experience having played a huge role in winning the La Liga title and being one of the unsung stalwarts that helped them nearly win the CL.

As for Ayew, he has far more pace than Chadli and presses the ball better than Chadli. He has way more end product than Andros Townsend (2 goals and 1 assists from open play in the last 2 seasons combined), so having added him to Eriksen/Lamela/Chadli would've given us options across 4 competitions and in the event of injury. But again, he'll be at Swansea, so we can assess this debate again during the season.

Konoplyanka ended up at Sevilla. They've won the Europa League the last two seasons and have been one of the shrewdest operating clubs in the transfer market in the last 3 years. Don't think that's evidence of some type of red flag surrounding Konoplyanka, but instead speaks to the fact that they see him as someone who can help them compete in the CL and become a top 4 team again in La Liga.

 

[braineclipse]

But who determines who we can and can't sign? That is the question. If we finish with a 40 million pound profit in the window (quite conceivable given the trajectory of outgoings and incomings, and past experience) and a few Stambo type deals that Poch will inevitably cast off next summer, can we really say that we are a) content in the knowledge that we tried our best to sign quality players, and b) justified in going to our youngsters so easily? And is that a youth-oriented strategy, or is it a shoddy excuse to avoid spending money?

The transfer committee decides.

How many times have we finished a window with a £40m net profit? (Or football-transfer inflation adjusted equivalent) Isn't our past experience that Levy does quite a lot of dealing later in the window? How does that fit your trajectory?

Youngest team in Europe (tm) last season. Was that a justified youth-oriented strategy or a shoddy excuse?

 

[DubaiSpur]

But presumably our scouting team, the black box and a filo of algorithms have concluded that for some reason or other that these players (if they were ever really on our radar) were not what we needed. We pay fairly decent money to Mitchell and the recruitment team. Presumably we trust they know more of what is needed and what these players have to offer (plus value for money) that all of us keyboard gurus?

Sure, I trust the recruitment team: not sure if I can trust the chairman to follow through on their recommendations, especially when they're more expensive than he prefers them to be.

I know I've pointed this out before, but there really is no reason other than speculation to think that Pochettino thought that Schneiderlin was worth this kind of "extraneous value". Anyone claiming that we made a mistake by not listening to Pochettino when he wanted Schneiderlin signed for whatever it is he would have cost last summer is doing so based on speculation.

Is it really that incredible that Pochettino perhaps agreed that Schneiderlin wasn't worth £25m+ to us as a club? I'm not convinced either way, but I do know that any argument based on knowing this one way or the other should be less bombastic than yours and acknowledge that it is speculative.

Extrapolation. If three former managers openly talking about how badly they wanted similarly 'crucial' players, only to be turned down by the board in favour of the cheapest options....if that hasn't convinced you when it comes to perhaps extrapolating a little, then there's really not much I can say. Speculative? Yes, but extremely likely. If you want cast-iron facts, wait till Poch gets sacked and confirms it in another tell-all interview somewhere.

 

[NWND]

Read the article I linked. It mentions a formal bid of 10 million quid, with no follow-up whatsoever. And doesn't mention Townsend at all: I believe that talk came much later in the window, towards the last week or so.



The point you were trying to make is that the same people who 'bitch' about Levy will also be the ones 'bitching' about Poch when things go sour, which is just illogical and unfair. It's also a bit of a cheap shot, imo. As for fans who 'just like to bitch', I still haven't seen anyone on this forum who's unequivocally unhappy with everything the club does, so that's also an overreach on your part, in the same way that misrepresenting you as an unabashed Levy apologist was on mine.

I'm not going to comment on the 'blame him all the time for everything without proof' accusation, given that half the time criticism about him (his transfers, mainly) is based on what AVB, Harry and Juande explicitly said: no faffing about with rumours here, this stuff came straight from the horse's mouth. And the 'broken record' thing is, as I mentioned, equally tiresome: if you claim that I'm constantly slagging him off about everything he does, then again, that's a stupidly transparent misrepresentation of my stance, and you can't then blame me for labelling you an unabashed Levy hero-worshipper who sees no faults in the man.

Anyway, drop it, park. I'm just moody after watching the damn Community Shield game, and I'm not likely to take this back-and-forth with good grace at the moment. Perhaps we can both be more reasonable later.



But who determines who we can and can't sign? That is the question. If we finish with a 40 million pound profit in the window (quite conceivable given the trajectory of outgoings and incomings, and past experience) and a few Stambo type deals that Poch will inevitably cast off next summer, can we really say that we are a) content in the knowledge that we tried our best to sign quality players, and b) justified in going to our youngsters so easily? And is that a youth-oriented strategy, or is it a shoddy excuse to avoid spending money?

I don't care what one press article that says it's been deleted so.I can't even view it says. Pretty much all reports were that a deal would have been done but Saints pulled the plug due to the brick storm taking them by surprise over Chambers and Schneiderlin himself said they'd done back on a promise.

 

[DubaiSpur]

The transfer committee decides.

How many times have we finished a window with a £40m net profit? (Or football-transfer inflation adjusted equivalent) Isn't our past experience that Levy does quite a lot of dealing later in the window? How does that fit your trajectory?

Youngest team in Europe (tm) last season. Was that a justified youth-oriented strategy or a shoddy excuse?

Given that we were forced into it, I'd say it was a bit of both. We had a plan to give our youngsters more exposure: we also failed miserably when it came to securing Poch's first choices, and we had first-team players Poch didn't care for. It came together in a way that saw us become the youngest team in Europe (tm), but I don't believe that was intentional given that we're still looking to sign quality first-team players and have already signed at least one (Toby), and possibly two depending on how you view Trippier.

As for the net profit....

 

[braineclipse]

Extrapolation. If three former managers openly talking about how badly they wanted similarly 'crucial' players, only to be turned down by the board in favour of the cheapest options....if that hasn't convinced you when it comes to perhaps extrapolating a little, then there's really not much I can say. Speculative? Yes, but extremely likely. If you want cast-iron facts, wait till Poch gets sacked and confirms it in another tell-all interview somewhere.

What's the base rate of sacked managers complaining about not getting their preferred transfer targets after getting sacked? I'm guessing spectacularly high...

Ignoring base rates is a logical fallacy, extrapolating from 3 instances whilst doing so and finding it "extremely likely" that the narrative fitting conclusion is supported based on that is not convincing to me at all. I'm guessing it would likely be the same for you if the topic wasn't Daniel Levy.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

First off, likewise. Now, to address your points: firstly, there isn't much doubt that we were in the market for the players that I mentioned. I make that claim because the managers we've sacked have all confirmed that these were the players they wanted to sign, only to be offered their cheaper replacements (Juande, Harry and AVB), so it's about as ITK as you can get. That we are after that calibre of player is not in question: that we routinely end up with their less able, cheaper replacements is the problem. Why that happens is the question, especially when we are the lowest net spenders in the Premier League over the last few seasons and definitely have the financial wherewithal to push the boat out for 'extraneous value' players at key times: not always, but at ciritical moments, like when a new manager needs that one player to implement his system (Schneiderlin for Poch, Moutinho for AVB) or we're on the verge of something big (3rd in January 2012). I'd suggest that we routinely fail at doing this because our chairman isn't the type to take even the smallest risk in pursuit of the club's on-pitch ambitions, and completely ignores the manager's valuations of transfer targets in favour of both his own and the scouting team's valuations of those players. The same thing can be seen with the stadium: we are going the lowest-risk route to fund it, and have delayed incessantly (including during that kerfuffle with Archway) to avoid spending any more than we absolutely have to. And while that approach may or may not be beneficial for a stadium project, it is definitely detrimental to the football team, imo. And yes, buying the wrong player at the wrong time can completely change performances as well: sadly, we learned that when we bought Saha and Nelsen in a window where many (possibly even the players) expected real reinforcements to push for the title. We ended up going into a tailspin, and Saha and Nelsen did little to arrest that tailspin.

As for Stambouli, Poch wanted Schneiderlin: this much everyone agrees on. He got Stambouli: whether he wanted him or not is still an open question, but he wasn't the player he envisioned originally anyway, so surely the point is somewhat moot.

If I remember correctly, we said no to Suarez on the basis that our scouts said he couldn't play up top on his own. Gullit then persuaded Harry to have a go, but the price went up to £22m? At that time, there was no way that we would have been able to match that, so we were priced out. The time to have got him was before and we couldn't help it that Liverpool had £50m burning a hole in their pocket!

With regards to Schneiderlin, I don't think it was penny pinching that stopped us from signing him. I actually think it was because of the vitriol of the Southampton fans to all of the other departures, and also the fact that Southampton do not like us! We did bid, player wanted to come and even threw a strop but it didn't happen. It's only an assumption that we could have signed him before then. Southampton weren't entirely happy about us taking Pochettino! I think Hulk is massively overrated and his wages are out of our league and Moutinho went to one of the richest clubs in the world (at the time) for a ridiculous fee and on ridiculous wages. The fact that they're thinking of off loading him doesn't actually seem like he is setting the world alight!

There are a million reasons why a transfer will not happen. I think it is a little simplistic to suggest that it is because Levy is a tight dilly daddler. He did splash a huge amount of money on 7 players not so long ago. He also spent £15m on David Bentley! He wants value for money and to get the best deal. More often than not, as our net transfer spend shows, he gets it right.

We also have to be quite careful with believing everything former managers say. Let's face it, the 3 of them do have an agenda to protect i.e. they made no mistakes, they were great managers, they could have done so much better but for the club. It's all the club's fault. It had nothing to do with the fact that Ramos was a more of a cup manager (Ledley's words from his autobiography), Harry took his eye off the ball in the pursuit of the England job and AVB destroyed the soul and speed of the team.

In my opinion, our biggest mistakes in the transfer market have been where we have sold our best players. Carrick aside, we could and should have insisted those players fulfilled the contracts that they had signed. Imagine if we held on to Berbatov for one more season so that he and Modric could have played together, kept on to Modric and also signed VdV, kept on to Bale for one more season and not have had the upheaval of that many new signings. But that is another topic of conversation.

 

[NWND]

Sure, I trust the recruitment team: not sure if I can trust the chairman to follow through on their recommendations, especially when they're more expensive than he prefers them to be.



Extrapolation. If three former managers openly talking about how badly they wanted similarly 'crucial' players, only to be turned down by the board in favour of the cheapest options....if that hasn't convinced you when it comes to perhaps extrapolating a little, then there's really not much I can say. Speculative? Yes, but extremely likely. If you want cast-iron facts, wait till Poch gets sacked and confirms it in another tell-all interview somewhere.

Another frankly ridiculous post full of hyperbole.

Ramos did not get "the cheapest options", he got Woodgate, Hutton, Modric, Dos Santos, Bentley, Pavlyuchenko. We might have not been able to sign his top targets but who gets their top targets all the time. What were the players he moaned about not getting, I'm pretty sure it was as ridiculous as AVB's moaning that a club whose average wage is about £60k a week.couldn't sign Hulk.

As for Redknapp he's always down to the bare bones, always pushing for players, always getting bored of his squad, always pressuring his chairman. Were the one club He left that didn't go bankrupt right?

 

[DubaiSpur]

What's the base rate of sacked managers complaining about not getting their preferred transfer targets after getting sacked? I'm guessing spectacularly high...

Ignoring base rates is a logical fallacy, extrapolating from 3 instances whilst doing so and finding it "extremely likely" that the narrative fitting conclusion is supported based on that is not convincing to me at all. I'm guessing it would likely be the same for you if the topic wasn't Daniel Levy.

It isn't as common as you're portraying it to be, but it is still admittedly a regular occurrence. However, when three different managers from three different countries sacked for three different reasons (bottom of the league, asked for a new contract after being rejected by England, had lost confidence in his side/his side had lost confidence in him) say the same damn things about a chairman who has been described as a tightwad by figures ranging from Jean-Michel Aulas to Alex Ferguson....you have to conclude that this hypothesis holds water.

If you're insistent on this angle of approach, then yes, I did not consider the population of such cases, only drew on three cases to form a hypothesis about the causal mechanisms at play, and am possibly influenced by confirmation bias. However, as I mentioned above, there is enough variation in the cases (which come from a population that is itself quite small) for me to feel fairly certain as to the validity of the hypothesized causal mechanism at play here.

 

[braineclipse]

Given that we were forced into it, I'd say it was a bit of both. We had a plan to give our youngsters more exposure: we also failed miserably when it came to securing Poch's first choices, and we had first-team players Poch didn't care for. It came together in a way that saw us become the youngest team in Europe (tm), but I don't believe that was intentional given that we're still looking to sign quality first-team players and have already signed at least one (Toby), and possibly two depending on how you view Trippier.

As for the net profit....

View attachment 2391

So continuing transfer activity of first choice players this season is a sign that last season's approach wasn't justified? Any other team this standard is applied to, or just us?

As for the table... Sure. Same site you got that from also has a "since 2003" table, places us 9th on per season spend with an annual spend of £5.7m. A slightly more in depth look at our last 10 seasons (again, same site) reveals that our only large net profits have come in the last 5 years. A period of time where the club has now completed a new training facility that has seemingly starting to produce for us and done a lot of financial work to secure what looks to be a spectacular new stadium project.

I wonder if you could see a connection perhaps.? Nope? Ok then. Just get back to posting the cherry picked table that fits your view, ignore other evidence and context then...

 

[DubaiSpur]

If I remember correctly, we said no to Suarez on the basis that our scouts said he couldn't play up top on his own. Gullit then persuaded Harry to have a go, but the price went up to £22m? At that time, there was no way that we would have been able to match that, so we were priced out. The time to have got him was before and we couldn't help it that Liverpool had £50m burning a hole in their pocket!

With regards to Schneiderlin, I don't think it was penny pinching that stopped us from signing him. I actually think it was because of the vitriol of the Southampton fans to all of the other departures, and also the fact that Southampton do not like us! We did bid, player wanted to come and even threw a strop but it didn't happen. It's only an assumption that we could have signed him before then. Southampton weren't entirely happy about us taking Pochettino! I think Hulk is massively overrated and his wages are out of our league and Moutinho went to one of the richest clubs in the world (at the time) for a ridiculous fee and on ridiculous wages. The fact that they're thinking of off loading him doesn't actually seem like he is setting the world alight!

There are a million reasons why a transfer will not happen. I think it is a little simplistic to suggest that it is because Levy is a tight dilly daddler. He did splash a huge amount of money on 7 players not so long ago. He also spent £15m on David Bentley! He wants value for money and to get the best deal. More often than not, as our net transfer spend shows, he gets it right.

We also have to be quite careful with believing everything former managers say. Let's face it, the 3 of them do have an agenda to protect i.e. they made no mistakes, they were great managers, they could have done so much better but for the club. It's all the club's fault. It had nothing to do with the fact that Ramos was a more of a cup manager (Ledley's words from his autobiography), Harry took his eye off the ball in the pursuit of the England job and AVB destroyed the soul and speed of the team.

In my opinion, our biggest mistakes in the transfer market have been where we have sold our best players. Carrick aside, we could and should have insisted those players fulfilled the contracts that they had signed. Imagine if we held on to Berbatov for one more season so that he and Modric could have played together, kept on to Modric and also signed VdV, kept on to Bale for one more season and not have had the upheaval of that many new signings. But that is another topic of conversation.

Off to bed, will definitely peruse with interest in the morning.

Another frankly ridiculous post full of hyperbole.

Ramos did not get "the cheapest options", he got Woodgate, Hutton, Modric, Dos Santos, Bentley, Pavlyuchenko. We might have not been able to sign his top targets but who gets their top targets all the time. What were the players he moaned about not getting, I'm pretty sure it was as ridiculous as AVB's moaning that a club whose average wage is about £60k a week.couldn't sign Hulk.

As for Redknapp he's always down to the bare bones, always pushing for players, always getting bored of his squad, always pressuring his chairman. Were the one club He left that didn't go bankrupt right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...isnt-important-Tottenham-just-care-money.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...enham-harry-redknapp-wanted-manchester-809769
http://www.theguardian.com/football...las-boas-tottenham-daniel-levy-broke-promises

It's ridiculous that these managers lose players they don't want to lose and then get sub-standard replacements? It's ridiculous to consider that we might have been able to do better than two f*cking free transfers at a time when we were 3rd and challenging for higher things? It's ridiculous to try to sign Hulk in a summer where we sold Bale for 85 million pounds, the one player AVB built his team around?

Sigh. I'm off to bed, the circular arguments are returning again.

 

[alekaras]

Given that we were forced into it, I'd say it was a bit of both. We had a plan to give our youngsters more exposure: we also failed miserably when it came to securing Poch's first choices, and we had first-team players Poch didn't care for. It came together in a way that saw us become the youngest team in Europe (tm), but I don't believe that was intentional given that we're still looking to sign quality first-team players and have already signed at least one (Toby), and possibly two depending on how you view Trippier.

As for the net profit....

View attachment 2391

Kudos for the best net transfer and making the top 6 consistently (and top 4 a couple of times in that period) on top of that, but what kills me about this chart is that the scum with just £30 million more in purchases have so much more quality in their squad.

 

[NWND]

It isn't as common as you're portraying it to be, but it is still admittedly a regular occurrence. However, when three different managers from three different countries sacked for three different reasons (bottom of the league, asked for a new contract after being rejected by England, had lost confidence in his side/his side had lost confidence in him) say the same damn things about a chairman who has been described as a tightwad by figures ranging from Jean-Michel Aulas to Alex Ferguson....you have to conclude that this hypothesis holds water.

If you're insistent on this angle of approach, then yes, I did not consider the population of such cases, only drew on three cases to form a hypothesis about the causal mechanisms at play, and am possibly influenced by confirmation bias. However, as I mentioned above, there is enough variation in the cases (which come from a population that is itself quite small) for me to feel fairly certain as to the validity of the hypothesized causal mechanism at play here.

Aulas called him a tight wad saying basically we'd rinsed them for Lloris, and we did. We know we were the only decent sized club looking for a keeper that summer and that he wanted to leave that summer. We used that to get a world class keeper for under £10m he still did the transfer even though he was tinkled Levy didn't pay his valuation. This is a bad thing for us, how???????

 

[DubaiSpur]

So continuing transfer activity of first choice players this season is a sign that last season's approach wasn't justified? Any other team this standard is applied to, or just us?

As for the table... Sure. Same site you got that from also has a "since 2003" table, places us 9th on per season spend with an annual spend of £5.7m. A slightly more in depth look at our last 10 seasons (again, same site) reveals that our only large net profits have come in the last 5 years. A period of time where the club has now completed a new training facility that has seemingly starting to produce for us and done a lot of financial work to secure what looks to be a spectacular new stadium project.

I wonder if you could see a connection perhaps.? Nope? Ok then. Just get back to posting the cherry picked table that fits your view, ignore other evidence and context then...

We also made an 80 million pound pre-tax overall profit over 2013-2014, if I recall correctly: the record for any PL club at the time it was announced. I only restricted myself to transfer spending because that's what we were discussing: if you insist on bringing in the facilities and outside elements of the club, then yes, the club rakes in record f*cking profits on a monumental goddamn basis, even as it's building some brilliant facilities, and it's difficult to even argue this. And weren't you arguing that finishing with a large net profit is a rare thing? For five years, we've done so well at it that we're bottom of the league in that regard: so yes, it is eminently possible for us to finish with a large net profit at the end of this window.

Kudos for the best net transfer and making the top 6 consistently (and top 4 a couple of times in that period) on top of that, but what kills me about this chart is that the scum with just £30 million more in purchases have so much more quality in their squad.

See sold, gross.

 

[braineclipse]

It isn't as common as you're portraying it to be, but it is still admittedly a regular occurrence. However, when three different managers from three different countries sacked for three different reasons (bottom of the league, asked for a new contract after being rejected by England, had lost confidence in his side/his side had lost confidence in him) say the same damn things about a chairman who has been described as a tightwad by figures ranging from Jean-Michel Aulas to Alex Ferguson....you have to conclude that this hypothesis holds water.

If you're insistent on this angle of approach, then yes, I did not consider the population of such cases, only drew on three cases to form a hypothesis about the causal mechanisms at play, and am possibly influenced by confirmation bias. However, as I mentioned above, there is enough variation in the cases (which come from a population that is itself quite small) for me to feel fairly certain as to the validity of the hypothesized causal mechanism at play here.

Is there a reason to think that variation in country of birth and reason for sacking (sacking, not getting poached by a bigger club) are predictors of how likely those managers are to claim that they didn't get his transfer targets after being sacked? I've never seen that argued before and I see no real reason to believe it to be the case...

 

[DubaiSpur]

Aulas called him a tight wad saying basically we'd rinsed them for Lloris, and we did. We know we were the only decent sized club looking for a keeper that summer and that he wanted to leave that summer. We used that to get a world class keeper for under £10m he still did the transfer even though he was ****ed Levy didn't pay his valuation. This is a bad thing for us, how???????

It isn't. That wasn't the damn point I was trying to make. A man who's tight to the point where Aulas hates his guts and Ferguson remarks that 'he's the most difficult man I've ever had to do business with' (or something similar)...you don't think such a man would happily screw over his managers for pennies to the pound?

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

Kudos for the best net transfer and making the top 6 consistently (and top 4 a couple of times in that period) on top of that, but what kills me about this chart is that the scum with just £30 million more in purchases have so much more quality in their squad.

Yes, but they're a different beast. Champions League and the ability to pay more in wages. The Ozil's of this world will not come to us until we fulfill both criteria, the latter one being the most important to them. That's why getting the stadium is so important. Once we have that, we can pay higher wages, we will be able to attract better players (come see the best training centre in Europe, one of the best stadium's and of course the best fans. Oh we will also pay you £140k a week)

Until then, we will need to get the Bale's, Modric's, Berbatov's and Carricks of this world like we always have. Unfortunately this will also mean that we will get the Paulinho's, Bentley's, Stambouli's, Chiriches', and Wilson Palacios' of this world who will do something but actually never take us to that next level.

 

[NWND]

Off to bed, will definitely peruse with interest in the morning.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...isnt-important-Tottenham-just-care-money.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...enham-harry-redknapp-wanted-manchester-809769
http://www.theguardian.com/football...las-boas-tottenham-daniel-levy-broke-promises

It's ridiculous that these managers lose players they don't want to lose and then get sub-standard replacements? It's ridiculous to consider that we might have been able to do better than two f*cking free transfers at a time when we were 3rd and challenging for higher things? It's ridiculous to try to sign Hulk in a summer where we sold Bale for 85 million pounds, the one player AVB built his team around?

Sigh. I'm off to bed, the circular arguments are returning again.

Your arguments are the most boring of all.

Ramos- got the best replacement we could get at the time. Its hindsight but at the time Pac was one of the hottest properties in Europe having been top scorer in the euros.

Yes we were 3rd and playing outstanding stuff. Why the need to spend? That squad with no additions was more than good enough to avoid the frankly relegation level form that coincided pretty much precisely between Redknapp being linked to the England job and Hodgsons appointment. Plus there were loads of Redknapp s signings clogging up the bench not playing when he was claiming to be short. Pienaar- what was the point?. Levy had every right to tell him to get f***÷d.

Hulk - while we technically could have afforded his fee with the Bale money, his wages would have been another kettle entirely.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

We also made an 80 million pound pre-tax overall profit over 2013-2014, if I recall correctly: the record for any PL club at the time it was announced. I only restricted myself to transfer spending because that's what we were discussing: if you insist on bringing in the facilities and outside elements of the club, then yes, the club rakes in record f*cking profits on a monumental goddamn basis, even as it's building some brilliant facilities, and it's difficult to even argue this. And weren't you arguing that finishing with a large net profit is a rare thing? For five years, we've done so well at it that we're bottom of the league in that regard: so yes, it is eminently possible for us to finish with a large net profit at the end of this window.



See sold, gross.

Dubai - The profit doesn't tell all of the story. In the accounts, much like transfers, the cost of building the training centre will be spread over the useful economic life (20 years or so). So, spending £200m (let's say) on a training centre will mean £10m a year less profit. Spending the same £200m on transfers (assuming 5 year contracts) would mean £40m a year less profit. You've spent the same £200m in both instances, but the effect on the profit is markedly different.

As any accountant will tell you, Cash is king!

 

[NWND]

Cabaye and Clasie both would replace Mason as all-around midfielders capable of creative forward passing, good tackling, and in Cabaye's case, he would've given us a player with lots of high level experience and end product (excellent set piece taker). Let's see how they do at Southampton and Palace this season and we can revisit this debate.

As for Suarez, he is a far better, more accomplished player than Stambouli. A better tackler, a better reader of the game, a better passer of the ball, and lots of top level experience having played a huge role in winning the La Liga title and being one of the unsung stalwarts that helped them nearly win the CL.

As for Ayew, he has far more pace than Chadli and presses the ball better than Chadli. He has way more end product than Andros Townsend (2 goals and 1 assists from open play in the last 2 seasons combined), so having added him to Eriksen/Lamela/Chadli would've given us options across 4 competitions and in the event of injury. But again, he'll be at Swansea, so we can assess this debate again during the season.

Konoplyanka ended up at Sevilla. They've won the Europa League the last two seasons and have been one of the shrewdest operating clubs in the transfer market in the last 3 years. Don't think that's evidence of some type of red flag surrounding Konoplyanka, but instead speaks to the fact that they see him as someone who can help them compete in the CL and become a top 4 team again in La Liga.

Clasie and Cabaye play with Bentaleb as a two in a PL midfield? Is that our defence running for cover? One thing those two don't do is tackle. They're both play makers. They both play the Bentaleb role in our team.

Ayew is meh for me. We shall see. Giving is options isn't what we need, we have the kids like Alli, Winks, Onomah to.give us options. What we need is improvements in some key areas.