KaKa

4 minutes ago, gdm said:

Where does the fact a lot of the same people that don’t want Gallagher want Maddison fit in with this anti English bullshit theory?

 

maybe, just maybe the fact Gallagher having a dreadful season is putting a lot of people off. 
 

 

 Just very quickly off the top of my head ... Gallagher, Mount, Rice, Grealish, Ramsdale, Pickford have all typically got a hard time on here.

I mean these are all at the very least somewhere between solid to really good players. I just don't get it.

Think that's a solid move for Potter.

Palace spend fairly decent money on good players, and also have a pretty good pipeline for young players in their area.

Getting to work with Eze, Olise, Edouard, Doucoure, Guehi, Anderson, Mitchell and Zaha is well worthwhile for him.

Could see him doing well with that bunch for sure.

1 hour ago, STM said:

Don't want Gallagher, he doesn't have a fancy foreign name and he hasn't done it in a shite league so obviously it's good enough.

 

Tells you alot about the modern football fan:

 

This Turkish kid has a few fancy highlights on YouTube... obviously the next Modric.

 

Gallagher, had a genuinely class season in the hardest league in the world at the age of 21/22... na he's shite. 

 

 

Can we not be sensible for one minute.

It never ceases to amaze me how much Brits seemingly dislike their own players.

Even Rice, who I've always thought was a good player, used to get killed on here whenever there were England games on.

In the last year when all the top clubs started showing interest with his time at West Ham winding down, then now everyone on here rates him and wants him too.

2 hours ago, Chicken Dancer said:

 

Like I said probably not this summer, but you're telling me that this early into our 'project', if Liverpool were really serious about taking Botman as a long term VVD replacement, Botman wouldn't be extremely tempted?

 

Let's not get too carried away based on the back of one fantastic season for us and one down season for them. Liverpool are one of football's giants and it'll take consistent Champions League qualification and challenging for honours before that changes - and I say this as someone who fucking hates them more than any other team. This isn't a dig at NUFC or our owners, it's just the way that it is for now.

 

Not to say it won't change, though. And to reiterate - I'm not worried about them taking one of our or anything like that, certainly not this summer. Just that they're still a huge draw for players, at or away from NUFC.

No, I don't believe that any player that is already in house and that is a part of where we are going will be pushing to go to Liverpool, no chance.

On top of that Liverpool would not be able to afford what we would ask for any of our better players.

17 minutes ago, Chicken Dancer said:

Aye, we’re miles off being considered a better option than Liverpool. They’re huge. 
 

Probably not this summer, but we’d still be vulnerable if Liverpool really were serious about taking one of our players. 
 

When competing for the same players at other clubs, yes, but signing away our own players? No chance.

Unreal price Barca are supposedly asking for Torres. Quotes our interest again too 

https://barcauniversal.com/barcelona-willing-to-sell-out-of-favour-forward-for-just-e20-25-million/

35 minutes ago, Sufi said:

I know Liverpool are Liverpool but if I were a player with a choice of being apart of a project like the one we have at NUFC, with champions league football, I'd probably prefer SJP over Anfield at the moment. I'm curious how much we have moved the dial and if its gotten to the point where players would be silly to not come here and prefer a shit show under Klopp over us.

It's only been a year, and we've just made the Champions League for the first time in forever, and you are already referring to Liverpool as a 'shit show' that players should be rejecting in our favour. My goodness.

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

I didn't post it. I never post Man United articles on here. That must be the WUM, arrogant side of me that makes me refrain from doing so.

 

To be fair though it is the Other Clubs Transfers thread. If we can't talk about Man United signings in here where can we? 

 

 

 

I know you didn't. I wasn't referring to you at all.

9 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Liverpool have been linked with every midfielder going. 

 

I've not seen much of Thuram, but if he's half as good as his numbers suggest he'll be some player. I wonder if we're in the mix.

He would have been on the list I think.

However, the guy we actually bid for last summer, who is a similar 6/8 was Kouadio Kone, and it's a bit quiet with him at the moment, and so perhaps we move for him again instead.

Why are we this bothered about what ten Hag has to say man? My goodness.

Just now, Deuce said:

I don’t think he’s anywhere close to being on our radar, but he’d be a great signing. Proven goalscorer, can play anywhere along the front, shithouse.

We'd have to pay at least the £60 million Spurs spent on him, which was not money well spent.

While Spurs were paying £60 million for him, we were spending that on Isak.

Cannot believe folks are talking about signing Richarlison ...

27 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

https://twitter.com/TheSpursExpress/status/1663544660701347841?s=20

It's all coming up Brendan at Spurs ...

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The press have never referred to upfront payments as the budget - the transfer budget has always been the total value of the players being brought in.  Only in articles where they go into further detail would they talk about payment structure.  You’re honestly the first person I’ve ever seen who made that assumption - everything from the press to the likes of transfermarkt.com refer to the total transfer value.  

Yes, but we've moved past what the press we're stating. That has been agreed on that it isn't very clear at all, because if it  is total numbers they are still getting the budgets wrong, and so they are apparently just throwing random numbers about.

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No, that is definitely how it always works.  A budget of £100m means the total value of the players brought in, not the size of the available down payments.  The down payments wouldn’t make sense, given that if you did so you’d then have to calculate that window’s budget all of the payment installations from previous transfers.

It’s about purchase power as much as owt else.  How much of a revenue making monster you are.  And we’re still a long way off even Spurs - even with finishing third and CL qualification next season.  That’s why we don’t have £150m+ to spend in the summer - our turnover is still dwarfed by a struggling Spurs.  Spurs have roughly three times our match day revenues, and roughly the same multiplier against commercial income.  There’s a long way to go yet. 

That is all taken into account before any budgets are set.

4 minutes ago, toon25 said:

Anyone that's watching the Juve-Milan match...That Juve kit is dreadful 

I've got it on too. The kit is a disgrace

Tell you what though ... this Moise Kean has so much to work with man. I hope he lands somewhere that he can settle properly and be given a chance to lead the line. So much raw talent.

18 minutes ago, Sempiternal said:

Eze has 10/4. And previous to this season his highest was 4/1.

 

 

 

Eze hasn't started as consistently as Barnes has to be fair.

2 minutes ago, STM said:

 

It has been utterly bizarre. Edwards saying 50m budget last summer or whatever.

 

I think it's pure guesswork.

Yeah, seems I've been giving them way too much credit by assuming they were quoting those figures based on the actual outlay we'd be shelling out upfront.

1 minute ago, SteV said:

If anyone is quoting our budget in terms instalment payments, they’d have factor in what we already owe for previous signings. 
 

So if they were saying £100m, about £20/£25m would already be accounted for.

I think typically what is still owed each year, is taken into account before then determining the transfer budget for that year.

So for example, before the club would have set this summer's budget, they would have already determined and taken into account what we need to pay out this year from previous deals first.

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Just to clear, I'm not disputing the method of payments for transfers.

 

What I'm saying is that NOBODY when talking about a transfer budget, especially when it comes to the press, talks about transfer budgets in this way.

 

For example we signed Pope for 12m over 4 payments (if I remember correctly) but for the purpose of "transfer budget speculation/talk" nobody says we spent 3m on Pope last summer.

 

When a journalist says "a budget of x million" they mean a budget of x million, not a budget of x million in first installments.

 

I'm talking football transfer parlance here.

That's interesting man. Every time budgets are mentioned I've never looked at it as taking total fees into account, because the figures always seemed too small then.

I mean they wouldn't even make sense if that was the case. And so if that's what the press are actually doing then it's pretty bizarre.

1 minute ago, Sempiternal said:

Got 10 the season before, but Vardy is finished and the other two are not very good 

10 the season before is a much better number, and so I'd hope for those kind of numbers if he signed, which like I said I wouldn't mind.

Not really with the narrative that those three strikers are the cause though. The likes of Harrison and Eze have had far less to work with upfront and put up better numbers.

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Well im telling you that's what's being suggested.

 

When a journalist puts a figure out, whether it be 50m, 100m or whatever, they are talking about transfer fees, not amortisation or any other magical bollocks.

 

I understand how that stuff works (kind of) but that's not what's being discussed here.

How can you be so sure that's what they are suggesting out of interest?

Also, it's nothing magical. Most transfer fees paid for players are spread out over a number of years, rather than the selling team getting the full money upfront, and so say we buy a £50 million player this summer, it may well be just an initial £15 million we pay from this year's budget, with the remainder split over another three years or whatever.

Just now, Sempiternal said:

He could get more assists but I mean who are their strikers? The ghost of Jamie Vardy, Ihenacho, Daka. Hardly a stellar set of options 

Those are three strikers good enough for him to get more than 1 assist. 1 assist is pretty difficult to achieve as a starting winger.

18 minutes ago, Sempiternal said:

13 in fact, one less than Saka. 

Barnes has talent but he tends to be a heads down type that misses a lot of opportunities to set others up.

Think he's ended the season with just one assist, which is somewhat criminal when you consider the attacking players on that Leicester team.

I wouldn't complain if we did sign him though. He's still a threat. I would like someone a bit classier and well rounded though.

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

That's not what is being suggested and you know it...

 

They are suggesting a 100m outlay on transfer fees. I'd be shocked if its below 150m.

No, I don't know it. That's how I've always looked at the budgets, because that's how they work.