Antonio Nusa

[Kandi1977]

Can't see it. No matter the FFP situation, I don't see us being a club willing to spend 100m this summer. We will work the way we have done at our best. Look for undervalued or underappreciated players purchased for good fees.

Not unlikely we'll spend 100m, just not on a single player. If someone is valued at 100m, we'll find another player for 30m, that is just as good, and then have 70m left to spend on a couple of other players.

 

[Grays_1890]

Can't see it. No matter the FFP situation, I don't see us being a club willing to spend 100m this summer. We will work the way we have done at our best. Look for undervalued or underappreciated players purchased for good fees.

Star quality players won't be 100m though anymore, the games pinching, just look at how quiet this window is, everyone in Europe is either skint or feeling FFP. Rice was never a 100m player IMO, could and would we go out and pay for a similar now for 70m if we felt they make the last difference? Given that we spent a large bulk of that kind of cash on Richarlison I can't see why not.

As I say we could probably sell 90% of our first team for double or 3 times what we paid, that would also give the club confidence that whats gone before worked and we can afford a risk.

Ultimately all clubs need a blend, without concentrating on fee, we have added established players before and I don't see why we wouldn't again

I'm talking star quality not hideously overpriced

 

[nattenskonge]

Can't see it. No matter the FFP situation, I don't see us being a club willing to spend 100m this summer. We will work the way we have done at our best. Look for undervalued or underappreciated players purchased for good fees.

Bit with that you say you dont care about winning things? How far has that got us? Dont get me wrong, the things that has been done the last 2 years has been good, we have a better team with no big holes, but we need to get CL, we need be able to have a real fight in cups and league. This year is ok, but next year? I trust the staff and I dont feel we are far from this. But If we cant pay 80+ for any player we need to use time on young players.. Im just afraid that, Sarr, Udogie, Bentancur, VDV… can be tempted to leave if real, city or PSG come knocking on the door… and we need a LV or striker han can give the extra. Nusa would not do that next season but maybe in 2-3 years

 

[Grays_1890]

Bit with that you say you dont care about winning things? How far has that got us? Dont get me wrong, the things that has been done the last 2 years has been good, we have a better team with no big holes, but we need to get CL, we need be able to have a real fight in cups and league. This year is ok, but next year? I trust the staff and I dont feel we are far from this. But If we cant pay 80+ for any player we need to use time on young players.. Im just afraid that, Sarr, Udogie, Bentancur, VDV… can be tempted to leave if real, city or PSG come knocking on the door… and we need a LV or striker han can give the extra. Nusa would not do that next season but maybe in 2-3 years

Yeh for me there has to be a balance now and when you look at the way the stars are aligning, with the increase in revenue, success of our youth investments etc, there will IMO 100% be a balance to who we bring in. As I said the other week I don't see summer needed a massive makeover, add to depth and a Striker, I imagine the depth will also be used to solve the HG issues (should we make the CL again) or at least try to. If we want a Striker or even a hybrid player to fit the mould then its likely to be a ready now player, who and how much who knows, but could well be in the Maddison mould (who I believe is star quality even if its not the star quality price people care too much about)

 

[Raziel]

Bit with that you say you dont care about winning things? How far has that got us? Dont get me wrong, the things that has been done the last 2 years has been good, we have a better team with no big holes, but we need to get CL, we need be able to have a real fight in cups and league. This year is ok, but next year? I trust the staff and I dont feel we are far from this. But If we cant pay 80+ for any player we need to use time on young players.. Im just afraid that, Sarr, Udogie, Bentancur, VDV… can be tempted to leave if real, city or PSG come knocking on the door… and we need a LV or striker han can give the extra. Nusa would not do that next season but maybe in 2-3 years

We paid £60M for a backup striker to Kane, so we can/do spend

We have a few things to consider
- to @Grays_1890's point, the economic environment has changed (and it will get tighter over next two years), the era of £100M not quite elite players may be over
- While our recruitment has greatly improved in last 3 or so years, when we go big, it tends to be very hit and miss (Ndombele, Sanchez, Lo Celso, Richarlison), and we can't just bin a £70M brick signing like City/United/etc.
- If Real, City or PSG come knocking we are doing something right ...

 

[Bishop]

We paid £60M for a backup striker to Kane, so we can/do spend

We have a few things to consider
- to @Grays_1890's point, the economic environment has changed (and it will get tighter over next two years), the era of £100M not quite elite players may be over
- While our recruitment has greatly improved in last 3 or so years, when we go big, it tends to be very hit and miss (Ndombele, Sanchez, Lo Celso, Richarlison), and we can't just bin a £70M brick signing like City/United/etc.
- If Real, City or PSG come knocking we are doing something right ...

We bought Richarlison knowing that Kane was leaving, that's not quite the same thing as paying 60m for a backup.

 

[Sandman]

We bought Richarlison knowing that Kane was leaving, that's not quite the same thing as paying 60m for a backup.

Did we? a whole season before. I Think we always knew we needed a back up, but someone who could also play up front with him. We had the season to prove to Kane he should stay. we failed. he left.

 

[Bishop]

Did we? a whole season before. I Think we always knew we needed a back up, but someone who could also play up front with him. We had the season to prove to Kane he should stay. we failed. he left.

Don't be naive, we knew Kane was leaving. He had wanted to leave the summer previous, and we didn't let him. Why would he stay with the club in an even worse position? His contract was up this summer we knew we had to sell to gain anything from him financially and Kane had already told us in private that he wasn't signing a new deal. So yes we signed Richarlison early in anticipation of Kane leaving and it was good forward planning in principle (not withstanding Richie's lack of quality).

 

[Bishop]

Not unlikely we'll spend 100m, just not on a single player. If someone is valued at 100m, we'll find another player for 30m, that is just as good, and then have 70m left to spend on a couple of other players.

100m total sure, we've done that before and more. 100m on one player I don't see happening, and that's why i queried your comment about no players being out of our reach now. FFP has adjusted some clubs actions but its just as likely they demand higher fees for specific proven talented players to clear their FFP debts as they are to sell them at a lower price. I actually think the former is more likely tbh. I suppose you will argue that if there are few buyers they wont be able to keep those higher prices but I guess we'll see.

One thing to bare in mind also is that we haven't gotten into the FFP spending deficit by being extravagant spenders. I would be surprised if we alter our course of operation now. Especially when you take into account that our best purchases last summer were once again those players who were under scouted, underappreciated and under priced relative to their quality, ie. Maddison, Sarr, Vicario, VDV etc.

 

[Kandi1977]

and that's why i queried your comment about no players being out of our reach now.

That wasn't me. That said, we CAN pay 100m on a player, but that's not usually how we operate.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

100m total sure, we've done that before and more. 100m on one player I don't see happening, and that's why i queried your comment about no players being out of our reach now. FFP has adjusted some clubs actions but its just as likely they demand higher fees for specific proven talented players to clear their FFP debts as they are to sell them at a lower price. I actually think the former is more likely tbh. I suppose you will argue that if there are few buyers they wont be able to keep those higher prices but I guess we'll see.

One thing to bear in mind also is that we haven't gotten into the FFP spending deficit by being extravagant spenders. I would be surprised if we alter our course of operation now. Especially when you take into account that our best purchases last summer were once again those players who were under scouted, underappreciated and under priced relative to their quality, ie. Maddison, Sarr, Vicario, VDV etc.

I don’t think there will be many clubs ever spending £100m again on one player
City have done it once
Pool never
United have got near to it through incompetence signing back their own youth player
Chelsea are unlikely too again imo because they have fudged their hand now

 

[Bishop]

That wasn't me. That said, we CAN pay 100m on a player, but that's not usually how we operate.

We've always been able to pay pretty much whatever the highest transfer fee was. We have just never done so because that's not the way we operate.

 

[RunTMC]

Don't be naive, we knew Kane was leaving. He had wanted to leave the summer previous, and we didn't let him. Why would he stay with the club in an even worse position? His contract was up this summer we knew we had to sell to gain anything from him financially and Kane had already told us in private that he wasn't signing a new deal. So yes we signed Richarlison early in anticipation of Kane leaving and it was good forward planning in principle (not withstanding Richie's lack of quality).

The truth is we’re all speculating here as none of us were in the room when the Richarlison discussions happened.

IMO we signed him because we’d be short on numbers when Kane left. I thought Son would be the Kane replacement and Richarlison would be a rotation option for CF and LW. And we’d be in for a starting LW (easier to find than a new Kane).

Anyway regardless of nuance the statement was factually correct. Kane and Son were still here when we got him, so he was a backup. And has continued to be so (when everyone is fit), and we’ll be in the market for a starting LW

 

[Bedfordspurs]

The truth is we’re all speculating here as none of us were in the room when the Richarlison discussions happened.

IMO we signed him because we’d be short on numbers when Kane left. I thought Son would be the Kane replacement and Richarlison would be a rotation option for CF and LW. And we’d be in for a starting LW (easier to find than a new Kane).

Anyway regardless of nuance the statement was factually correct. Kane and Son were still here when we got him, so he was a backup. And has continued to be so (when everyone is fit), and we’ll be in the market for a starting LW

I think we brought him because we wanted an extra player in who was flexible and available and … premier league proven
The fee did seem fair at the time
We ways knew the Kane call would be made at some point and I’d be worried if we didn’t plan for it
But I also think we will look at another attacker this summer. The Nusa link shows we are now for sure