The General Transfer Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Grays_1890]

Your policy fails from the get go because it is based on the monetary value of the player.

Indeed why spend £10-12m on Toby because you want to spend £120m so you spunk £32m on Eliaquim Mangala, or why spend. Emirates Marketing Project also decided to spend £50m on Sterling, because that was obvious the best use of that money. It is a myth if you think that you have to spend £120m to sign 3 quality players.

Ok I am open to put hands up and say I maybe didn't explain myself that well and figures were maybe fanciful.

But I will pick you up on Mangala, no one else wanted him and Emirates Marketing Project paid that figure, as they have proven numerous times they have paid over the odds for players no one really wants. 200k wages for Toure, who else in world football was paying that for him? No one, Barce wanted rid BIG TIME.

I was thinking more going to an Everton and saying "what you want for Barkley" (thats not literal but just saying as an example)

 

[Gutter Boy]

Ok I am open to put hands up and say I maybe didn't explain myself that well and figures were maybe fanciful.

But I will pick you up on Mangala, no one else wanted him and Emirates Marketing Project paid that figure, as they have proven numerous times they have paid over the odds for players no one really wants. 200k wages for Toure, who else in world football was paying that for him? No one, Barce wanted rid BIG TIME.

I was thinking more going to an Everton and saying "what you want for Barkley" (thats not literal but just saying as an example)

If we're throwing silly money around, why not go for Schneiderlin or Matic? Kick our rivals while they are down like they used to with us?

It's just not what works for us.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Ok I am open to put hands up and say I maybe didn't explain myself that well and figures were maybe fanciful.

But I will pick you up on Mangala, no one else wanted him and Emirates Marketing Project paid that figure, as they have proven numerous times they have paid over the odds for players no one really wants. 200k wages for Toure, who else in world football was paying that for him? No one, Barce wanted rid BIG TIME.

I was thinking more going to an Everton and saying "what you want for Barkley" (thats not literal but just saying as an example)

If it was anything more than about a fiver I'd steer clear.... He looks to me to be a player who only plays for himself... greedy and only tracks opponents runs when he feels like it.

 

[Finney Is Back]

If we're throwing silly money around, why not go for Schneiderlin or Matic? Kick our rivals while they are down like they used to with us?

It's just not what works for us.

I would like Schneiderlin, but I think he would be on a salariy that are beyond what we are prepared to pay (I think Matic would also be on a salary above our payscale).

 

[Rorschach]

I would like Schneiderlin, but I think he would be on a salary that are beyond what we are prepared to pay (I think Matic would also be on a salary above our payscale).

I was about to say the same. Schneiderlin would be perfect but probably on enormous wages (£100k was reported)
Maybe Utd could pay a portion?

 

[DubaiSpur]

Your policy fails from the get go because it is based on the monetary value of the player.

Indeed why spend £10-12m on Toby because you want to spend £120m so you spunk £32m on Eliaquim Mangala, or why spend. Emirates Marketing Project also decided to spend £50m on Sterling, because that was obvious the best use of that money. It is a myth if you think that you have to spend £120m to sign 3 quality players.

The funny thing is, some people (even on this board) thought 13.5 mil for Toby (which is what we spent on him, iirc) was too much, and that he wouldn't be worth it (too old, wasn't impressive at Soton ( ), etc.). Ditto Son, who cost a cool 22.5 million quid.

The fact of the market is that the best players tend to be more expensive than the rest, which is what that logic is based on. The lower the valuation of a player, the more risks involved with his transfer, barring some of the miraculously underpriced gems that do exist in small quantities. But finding only those types of players is an art form; paying through the nose for talent, conversely, is a more scatter-gun approach that, while less deserving of praise, still got the job done for the rich clubs throughout contemporary football history.

Broadly speaking, you do tend to get what you pay for.

 

[Illy]

We need to buy a Top quality striker who can play with Harry Kane or instead of him. Harry may have scored our goals this season but he missed some important ones as well, and there were times when he needed to be pulled out of the firing line. A decent midfield player to replace the outgoing Carrol and Bentaleb is needed, and if rumours about Henderson are true then I would snap him up as a great addition. In defence I think we are well covered, and also Vorm as a back up to Lloris is also good.

 

[Gutter Boy]

We need to buy a Top quality striker who can play with Harry Kane or instead of him. Harry may have scored our goals this season but he missed some important ones as well, and there were times when he needed to be pulled out of the firing line. A decent midfield player to replace the outgoing Carrol and Bentaleb is needed, and if rumours about Henderson are true then I would snap him up as a great addition. In defence I think we are well covered, and also Vorm as a back up to Lloris is also good.

Henderson over Bentaleb!

Do you want Lallana over Alli too?!

 

[DubaiSpur]

I was about to say the same. Schneiderlin would be perfect but probably on enormous wages (£100k was reported)
Maybe Utd could pay a portion?

We won't be doing business with United, so I think that's a non-starter, unfortunately. Would still love him here, of course, but he's at a club we won't be interacting with. Same goes for players at Chelsea, the Goons and City. I could see us doing some business with Liverpool, since I doubt the boards hate each other or the club sees itself as big enough to ask for our top stars in exchange for any players of theirs we're interested in..but not United.

 

[braineclipse]

Continued player development should be a key part of our transfer strategy, as I'm almost certain it is.

The games changed alot since Arsenals financing. And they still managed to spend a shed load on Sanchez....

Lets waits and see, as I said on another post even if within that it was one player of top quality thats how my policy would operate now

Arsenal spent a shed load on Sanchez about a decade after finishing their stadium. We're still in the process of building ours...

The funny thing is, some people (even on this board) thought 13.5 mil for Toby (which is what we spent on him, iirc) was too much, and that he wouldn't be worth it (too old, wasn't impressive at Soton ( ), etc.). Ditto Son, who cost a cool 22.5 million quid.

The fact of the market is that the best players tend to be more expensive than the rest, which is what that logic is based on. The lower the valuation of a player, the more risks involved with his transfer, barring some of the miraculously underpriced gems that do exist in small quantities. But finding only those types of players is an art form; paying through the nose for talent, conversely, is a more scatter-gun approach that, while less deserving of praise, still got the job done for the rich clubs throughout contemporary football history.

Broadly speaking, you do tend to get what you pay for.

That is very broadly speaking. Tons and tons of variance in the cost/ability correlation.

 

[Rorschach]

We won't be doing business with United, so I think that's a non-starter, unfortunately. Would still love him here, of course, but he's at a club we won't be interacting with. Same goes for players at Chelsea, the Goons and City. I could see us doing some business with Liverpool, since I doubt the boards hate each other or the club sees itself as big enough to ask for our top stars in exchange for any players of theirs we're interested in..but not United.

Yeah I think it is unlikely too but maybe if LVG is still around he might agitate to get out of there. He doesn't play much.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Henderson over Bentaleb!

Do you want Lallana over Alli too?!

Henderson and Alli please. Or if one wants Henderson do they also have to take Lallana by default?

 

[braineclipse]

Henderson is already on 100k p/w at Liverpool. So matching what he's currently making would make him the highest paid player at our club, with the possibility of Kane and one or two others getting that or slightly more this summer or next season.

For a box to box midfielder without a lot of end product that seems off to me. For a player that (imo) has shown at Liverpool that he's a bit of a passenger in that he needs the team to work well around him for him to play an important part, he is not the player to raise a team to a different level.

Wouldn't get in our current starting 11, but we're going to chuck out a huge amount of money on a transfer fee and 100k p/w for him? Not getting it at all.

 

[DubaiSpur]

That is very broadly speaking. Tons and tons of variance in the cost/ability correlation.

Maybe. Personally, if I look at the list of most expensive transfers of all time, I'd wager I'd see a split roughly between 66/33 to 75/25, in terms of successes over failures. Whether that's a failure rate you're comfortable with is, of course, a different matter entirely, and I wouldn't blame you for shying away from such a prospect (although I'd disagree); but, again, it is more likely that the more expensive player turns out to be the better one.

Yeah I think it is unlikely too but maybe if LVG is still around he might agitate to get out of there. He doesn't play much.

True, but again, I could easily see the gits enquiring for Kane or Alli in any deal for Schneiderlin. We slammed the door shut on domestic transfers for our key players after 2008 - I'd rather not see that cracked open, whether by slow means or quick ones.

 

[braineclipse]

Maybe. Personally, if I look at the list of most expensive transfers of all time, I'd wager I'd see a split roughly between 66/33 to 75/25, in terms of successes over failures. Whether that's a failure rate you're comfortable with is, of course, a different matter entirely, and I wouldn't blame you for shying away from such a prospect (although I'd disagree); but, again, it is more likely that the more expensive player turns out to be the better one.

Not sure it's fair to use players like Ronaldo, Bale, Zidane and Figo as a basis for speculating on what we can do in the transfer market this summer. That's a level of player we cannot attract at this point.

For ourselves our most expensive signings have not been particularly successful. For comparable clubs and fees I think similar things can be said. Levy pointed out in the last trust meeting how the £10-15m range had brought us a lot of success in the past and would be where we should expect most big signings to be for now. For me that seems reasonable.

My point is more that the focus is so heavily on spending big. For what reason?

Sure, if Mitchell, Poch and the scouts agree that player X is the man and he costs £35m I wouldn't be against it. But similarly if the transfer committee ends up thinking that although player X is good he's just too expensive at £35m, but this other player is great value at £10m, or £4-5m (like Alli or Dier) that seems like an equally valid conclusion to reach. But plenty of fans will seemingly be unhappy with that and end up complaining all summer that we haven't "spent big".

 

[DubaiSpur]

Not sure it's fair to use players like Ronaldo, Bale, Zidane and Figo as a basis for speculating on what we can do in the transfer market this summer. That's a level of player we cannot attract at this point.

For ourselves our most expensive signings have not been particularly successful. For comparable clubs and fees I think similar things can be said. Levy pointed out in the last trust meeting how the £10-15m range had brought us a lot of success in the past and would be where we should expect most big signings to be for now. For me that seems reasonable.

My point is more that the focus is so heavily on spending big. For what reason?

Sure, if Mitchell, Poch and the scouts agree that player X is the man and he costs £35m I wouldn't be against it. But similarly if the transfer committee ends up thinking that although player X is good he's just too expensive at £35m, but this other player is great value at £10m, or £4-5m (like Alli or Dier) that seems like an equally valid conclusion to reach. But plenty of fans will seemingly be unhappy with that and end up complaining all summer that we haven't "spent big".

Sure, no one's saying we can attract Bale back to the club or anything - the general point I was making was that the more expensive transfers usually end up being more successful than the cheaper signings. The reason why clubs with 'buy low, sell high' strategies and recruitment teams that build squads of cheap but effective players are so lauded is precisely because such phenomena tend to be unusual - on the whole, if the market prices a player lower than another, there's generally (generally) a reason for that which manifests itself in some inherent disadvantage the player possesses relative to his more expensive counterpart.

Personally, I think we did a good job last summer in picking up some great players. Toby cost 13.5 million quid (iirc), and I was delighted to get him, since it was transparently obvious that he should have cost a lot more given his outstanding season with Soton and that he'd form a great partnership with Jan. Son cost 22.5 million quid and I was still delighted to get him, since (to my mind) that's the sort of quality we should be aiming to fill the squad with as much as possible, and there was no doubting that he was talented (could use both feet, quick, clinical, relentless runner, great inside-forward), young and seemingly unattainable prior to our move for him (what with him being at Leverkusen, a club with CL football).

There's certainly grounds for concern if the summer was filled with 'great value' signings alone, but only because previous instances of such transfers have been a very mixed bag - for every Dier and Alli, there has been a Stambouli, Fazio, Saha or Nelsen who genuinely were bargain bins in every sense of the term. While Dier and Alli might herald a new era of *only* making smart value signings, I'm not sure they signify a trend just yet, and would thus be concerned if that was all they did. But another summer like the one we had in 2015 wouldn't faze me at all, and I'd be more than happy with that.

 

[billyiddo]

since our scouting overhaul we seem to have done pretty well in the transfer market and i'll be optimistic with whoever we sign - whether they cost 2 mil or 20 mil. big money signings are the ones which grab peoples attention and as such are the ones which get more discussion, also more chance of people being aware of a player that would cost us 20 mil than one which would cost us 2 mil.

 

[Gazza]

Agree Billy... could put an argument forward for wimmer being one of our finest signings under poch. To fill Jan's boots at a crucial stage and with a lack of experience ... exceptional

 

[DubaiSpur]

since our scouting overhaul we seem to have done pretty well in the transfer market and i'll be optimistic with whoever we sign - whether they cost 2 mil or 20 mil. big money signings are the ones which grab peoples attention and as such are the ones which get more discussion, also more chance of people being aware of a player that would cost us 20 mil than one which would cost us 2 mil.

More than that, the cheaper signings tend to bring questions about why those players were valued as low as they were; was it a case of undervalued talent (perhaps due to the financial condition of the club, contract issues, or just overlooked potential) or did/does the selling club know something that we didn't/don't know?

As I said, for every Dier or Alli, there has been a Stambouli and a Fazio. Our present scouting team have been pretty good, so I'm more relaxed about it than I otherwise would have been, but even they can't be expected to conduct only a season of value transfers and get them *all* right.

 

[NaijaSpurs]

I was thinking more going to an Everton and saying "what you want for Barkley" (thats not literal but just saying as an example)

I am not even say that Barkley is a bad player but I think it is a bad example because I am not convinced he is what we need. Besides with Barkley you end up playing the "English player tax", and guess what, the next thing we are on the way to spending £120m