Interpolic

Surely they'll be paying him no more than 30k/week, in which case he'd have been a decent squad player for us for that sort of money.

Lovely handwriting.

You even get trolleys to look at on trains, the man is a walking talking contradiction.

Train

"I am Lejeune" Wish football clubs would fuck off with this goofy shit.

The Lawrenson stuff is brilliant. "Another year"

Should all over both of them ffs. 45M would get the pair of them I reckon. Just 10 million more than what was paid for Andy Carroll. And Michael Keene Wouldn't want us to spend over half of our budget on 2 strikers when we already have Gayle and play one up front like.

AV IT!

Sell him

More excited about Riviere tbh, this transfer has been that boring.

Must be putting the final touches on the fake WhatsApp video.

The first reply

First Sherwood, now this.

Brexit

Article about our improvement with set pieces: https://www.premierleague.com/news/424239?sf94596997=1

didn't we spend ~£80 last summer and jan, get relegated, sell ~£80m in players but at the same time as spending ~£50m on new ones for the champo leaving a ~£30m profit? that's how i recall it 87m from sales. 57m spent on players. Although because Spurs haven't paid the balance of the 30m yet the club would have essentially broken even in terms of cash in the bank. I really think this could be a factor in the hold up this summer. This is often put forward as a reason for us dawdling in the transfer market, maybe if it's leading to us being uncompetitive we should stop doing it.

We spent 80m when we got relegated... The problem wasn't how much we spent, it was spending it on the incorrect players Ofcourse McClaren takes a blame for poor coaching etc but in the past 2 seasons we havent consistently gone for bargain players Bakumbu only made 17 starts last season due to a poor injury record, with West Ham reportably having a 20m plus offer rejected, is he really worth us spending a large chunk of our budget on? Its a big risk imo We spent 80m after years and years of spending next to nowt and if you look at the players we bought it was the same old story of signing personnel mainly on the basis of resale value when we needed players for the here and now with the right talent and characteristics. We very rarely pay the going rate for players that are likely to come in and do a job, it's always about saving a few quid here and there. The example here being Bakambu, yes he has no PL experience but looking at him, he's mobile, strong and a good finisher so there's no reason he wouldn't succeed. But we'll only ever sign players like that if it's below market rate and/or we think we can perhaps turn a profit later on. Having that attitude to all deals doesn't work. I agree in the relegation season we needed players for the here and now, players like Mitrovic a prime example didnt work out. We paid big on players like him and Thauvin, in hope the value would increase for possible future profit and the risk didnt pay off However we havent done this for all players, this past season has been different, signing older players such as Gamez, Murphy etc it hasn't just been about cutting costs or future transfer fees but about getting the job done People think we have this massive budget where we can hoy 20m bids at players such as Ake like Bournemouth have done, but the difference is they only needed to invest in a couple of players when we need (in my opinion) atleast six players. We still have Riviere, Saviet, De jong, Hanley, Murphy, Gamez, Haidara, Lazaar etc who we need to shift off the wage bill, and our budget needs to stretch a long way Our transfers are critical to the club staying up this season and hopefully building something for the future, we have to make sure recruitment is bang on this season Although its frustrating, I understand the skeptism of the club spending big on one 'unproven' player You make a fair point yeah, we need to spread the transfer outlay well but I think if we spend it all on "bargains" they won't end up being bargains at all. We need to spend the going rate on at least 2 or 3 players that will come into the first team and be important players, ideally those players will be down the spine of the team or we're going to be very lightweight next year.

We spent 80m when we got relegated... The problem wasn't how much we spent, it was spending it on the incorrect players Ofcourse McClaren takes a blame for poor coaching etc but in the past 2 seasons we havent consistently gone for bargain players Bakumbu only made 17 starts last season due to a poor injury record, with West Ham reportably having a 20m plus offer rejected, is he really worth us spending a large chunk of our budget on? Its a big risk imo We spent 80m after years and years of spending next to nowt and if you look at the players we bought it was the same old story of signing personnel mainly on the basis of resale value when we needed players for the here and now with the right talent and characteristics. We very rarely pay the going rate for players that are likely to come in and do a job, it's always about saving a few quid here and there. The example here being Bakambu, yes he has no PL experience but looking at him, he's mobile, strong and a good finisher so there's no reason he wouldn't succeed. But we'll only ever sign players like that if it's below market rate and/or we think we can perhaps turn a profit later on. Having that attitude to all deals doesn't work.

Sometimes you have to pay the going rate, we've all seen what happens when you insist on every incoming deal being a "bargain" with the aim of selling on at a higher price later on. You get relegated. Twice. It's a false economy that costs you financially and in a sporting sense, shame we seemingly haven't learnt this by now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40446713