Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Other clubs transfer rumours thread

LooneyToonArmy

by LooneyToonArmy
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest quklaani

Guest quklaani

Posted
Posted

THE OLD TRAFFORD future of Carlos Tevez has been thrown into doubt by Manchester United’s pursuit of Douglas Costa.

 

blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

But Sport of the World understands United are deadly serious about capturing 18-year-old attacking midfielder Costa, who is also on the hitlist of Barcelona and Real Madrid.

 

:cheesy:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robster

Robster

Posted
Posted

Classy Heskey reacting to rumours about a return to Liverpool in saying that he would love a return there. Bet the Wigan fans are well chuffed at that.

 

He really think he has a chance of going back there when they have just spunked however million of Robbie Keane

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teasy

Teasy

Posted
Posted

I still don't see why it matters where the money comes from. They are still outspending everyone else, and bullying other teams into selling to them through tapping up and other methods. They are just a s bad as Chelsea. I wonder if its because people just aren't used to Chelsea having this much power, while Manchester United acting in such a way is just the status quo.

 

Of course it matters, one situation is a Football club being able to spend because they generate big money from being am extremely successful Football club.  The other is a club who are able to spend simply because some bloke decided he fancied playing Football manager in real life.  One is the way it should be, the other will destroy the game completely.  I'm not saying I like Man Utd, I think they're a bunch of spoilt cunts and I think there is bias towards them from all corners in the game.  However I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on when complaining about them spending the money they make from their own success..

 

Both are several hundred million pounds in debt so, regardless of how they got there, it's hard to argue that "One is the way it should be".

 

Its not hard to argue, its quite easy really.  What's hard to argue is that these two clubs are in anywhere near similar situations.  Manure are in debt because the Glazers put them in debt to finance their takeover, its also sustainable within the finances of the club.  Chelsea are in debt because they couldn't afford the players they bought, or their wages.  They're also in debt to a point where they would have had to fold 10 times over if not for Abramovich.

 

Manure are a club who can spend big because they're successful.  Chelsea are a club who have had insane amounts of money spent for them to make them successful..  If anyone out there can't see the difference there then.. well I'd be speechless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Edd

Guest Edd

Posted
Posted

I still don't see why it matters where the money comes from. They are still outspending everyone else, and bullying other teams into selling to them through tapping up and other methods. They are just a s bad as Chelsea. I wonder if its because people just aren't used to Chelsea having this much power, while Manchester United acting in such a way is just the status quo.

 

Of course it matters, one situation is a Football club being able to spend because they generate big money from being am extremely successful Football club.  The other is a club who are able to spend simply because some bloke decided he fancied playing Football manager in real life.  One is the way it should be, the other will destroy the game completely.  I'm not saying I like Man Utd, I think they're a bunch of spoilt cunts and I think there is bias towards them from all corners in the game.  However I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on when complaining about them spending the money they make from their own success..

 

Both are several hundred million pounds in debt so, regardless of how they got there, it's hard to argue that "One is the way it should be".

 

Its not hard to argue, its quite easy really.  What's hard to argue is that these two clubs are in anywhere near similar situations.  Manure are in debt because the Glazers put them in debt to finance their takeover, its also sustainable within the finances of the club.  Chelsea are in debt because they couldn't afford the players they bought, or their wages.  They're also in debt to a point where they would have had to fold 10 times over if not for Abramovich.

 

Manure are a club who can spend big because they're successful.  Chelsea are a club who have had insane amounts of money spent for them to make them successful..  If anyone out there can't see the difference there then.. well I'd be speechless.

 

Of course I can see the difference , that's why I said "regardless of how they got there".  The argument isn't how the clubs got into debt, but that no club should be held up as an example of how other clubs should be run when they are so hugely in debt.  Given the current financial climate if anyone out there can't see the commonsense in that then... well I'd be speechless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teasy

Teasy

Posted
Posted

I still don't see why it matters where the money comes from. They are still outspending everyone else, and bullying other teams into selling to them through tapping up and other methods. They are just a s bad as Chelsea. I wonder if its because people just aren't used to Chelsea having this much power, while Manchester United acting in such a way is just the status quo.

 

Of course it matters, one situation is a Football club being able to spend because they generate big money from being am extremely successful Football club.  The other is a club who are able to spend simply because some bloke decided he fancied playing Football manager in real life.  One is the way it should be, the other will destroy the game completely.  I'm not saying I like Man Utd, I think they're a bunch of spoilt cunts and I think there is bias towards them from all corners in the game.  However I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on when complaining about them spending the money they make from their own success..

 

Both are several hundred million pounds in debt so, regardless of how they got there, it's hard to argue that "One is the way it should be".

 

Its not hard to argue, its quite easy really.  What's hard to argue is that these two clubs are in anywhere near similar situations.  Manure are in debt because the Glazers put them in debt to finance their takeover, its also sustainable within the finances of the club.  Chelsea are in debt because they couldn't afford the players they bought, or their wages.  They're also in debt to a point where they would have had to fold 10 times over if not for Abramovich.

 

Manure are a club who can spend big because they're successful.  Chelsea are a club who have had insane amounts of money spent for them to make them successful..  If anyone out there can't see the difference there then.. well I'd be speechless.

 

Of course I can see the difference , that's why I said "regardless of how they got there".  The argument isn't how the clubs got into debt, but that no club should be held up as an example of how other clubs should be run when they are so hugely in debt.  Given the current financial climate if anyone out there can't see the commonsense in that then... well I'd be speechless.

 

I didn't claim that Manure should be held up as an example of how other clubs should be run.  I said that being able to buy big because of being a successful club is how it should be.  As compared to being able to buy success because a bloke decides to throw his money away on a unsuccessful club for a laugh (the way it shouldn't be).

 

Having said that I think pre American takeover they are a great example of how a club should be run.  They've made themselves into an amazingly successful club through great management and despite not being based in London.  Until the Glazers decided buy the club with its own money they didn't have any real debt, and even now the debt they have is still manageable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LooneyToonArmy

LooneyToonArmy

Posted
Posted

Blackburn Rovers are hell-bent on signing Argentine midfielder Oscar Ahumada from River Plate, according to The People.

 

The Ewood Park club were prompted to increase their scouting presence in South America after delighting in the form of Roque Santa Cruz last term and and have identified Ahumada as a priority target.

 

Gaffer Paul Ince doesn't have ridiculous amounts of money to play with, but the 26-year-old could be available for around £4m, making him affordable.

 

Ince has crippling injury problems in the midfield and is keen to reinforce his squad in January.

 

The Guv'nor is said to be interested in Ahumada for his fiery presence, as well as his capable midfield play. The outspoken player was involved in a dispute with River Plate supporters this year and his often over-zealous tackling has landed him in hot water on several occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thomas

thomas

Posted
Posted

Looks like Beckhams off to AC Milan for 6months...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7683877.stm

 

That would be a very good move for him, top quality football but less physical and fast paced than the premiership.

 

Wonder if he wishes he had never gone to America now?

if http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/beckham-rejected-milan-and-inter-to-take-galaxy-millions-431736.html is correct it's hard to blame him. A £128m over 5 years deal is absolutely mind boggling, regardless of how much of it was incentive based. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MrSundlofer

Guest MrSundlofer

Posted
Posted

Could probably stroll around in Serie A till  he's 38.

 

Strange, but that is actually true! A lot of players over 35 are still playing in that league.

 

How old was Costacurta when he ended his time at Milan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest koenji

Guest koenji

Posted
Posted

Could probably stroll around in Serie A till  he's 38.

 

Strange, but that is actually true! A lot of players over 35 are still playing in that league.

 

How old was Costacurta when he ended his time at Milan?

 

41, ....Marco Balotta (goalkeeper of Lazio) retired at 43 but I think Shilton played on longer than that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tooj

Tooj

Posted
Posted

Could probably stroll around in Serie A till  he's 38.

 

Strange, but that is actually true! A lot of players over 35 are still playing in that league.

 

How old was Costacurta when he ended his time at Milan?

 

A bit different though being a defender.

 

Saying that mind, Baggio was still brilliant up until the day he retired.  :love:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronaldo

Ronaldo

Posted
Posted

Could probably stroll around in Serie A till  he's 38.

 

Strange, but that is actually true! A lot of players over 35 are still playing in that league.

 

How old was Costacurta when he ended his time at Milan?

 

41, ....Marco Balotta (goalkeeper of Lazio) retired at 43 but I think Shilton played on longer than that?

 

I remember Shilton playing his 1000th game for Lleyton Orient, think he was 48 at the time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...