The transfer Window,..

[cp40]

Is it time this Idea was transferred out of the game.

 

Im not certain why it was originally introduced, but the game has changed with the pressure on managers, they are lucky to get 6 months to turn things round, surely they should be given the chance to change thier players as soon as they come in.

 

i cant see how the transfer window has improved the game.

 

perhaps they could make the window stay open, from the start of the season till the end of january,..

[NG32]

But a good manager should be able to work with what they've got. 

 

 

Was this not introduced to stop teams spending their way out of trouble?

[Nobody]

Keep it, couldn't stand it if we'd have constant speculation on who's coming in/going out.

[tgarve]

as much as I hate it he makes a good point because some clubs would just spend spend spend leading to more financial difficulties and clubs such as Chelsea ending up with huge underplayed squads.

It also leads to the league being a bit more of a level playing field because when the big players get injured at big clubs they cant just buy ready made superstar replcements and have to cope like other teams.

As much as I hate it for our own club it overall has been a good idea imo.

 

[Lenny]

The only real alternative I can think of to stopping teams buying their way out of trouble would be to introduce a cap on the amount that can be spent per season.

 

I don't know whether that would work though.

[NG32]

Would we be moaning about the transfer window as it stands if in the last 4 years we'd done well in all the transfer windows and were top 6/7?

 

I dont think so.

[Fatwax]

I love to see the end of the transfer window because I'm sick to death of every football article in them few months contain the words "slam shut".

[Neil]

Think it's a good idea really. Don't agree with the idea of a team spending constantly throughout the season. Just opinion though.

[80]

But a good manager should be able to work with what they've got. 

 

 

Was this not introduced to stop teams spending their way out of trouble?

 

No, the excuse for introducing it related essentially to Webster rulings - the argument was its adoption would prevent players breaking contracts all year round. Ridiculous system which should never have been introduced - the Spanish should've been allowed to hinder their own game however they wished.

 

I find it really strange the way many talk about all-year transfers as though its some bizarre idea that would disrupt the game - we managed for over a century without any difficulty. There is a lot to be said for the idea that this system is what serves to distort the market - that wild, dangerous financial behaviour is encouraged by its existence, with a game of chicken played between buying and selling parties.

 

Keep it, couldn't stand it if we'd have constant speculation on who's coming in/going out.

 

If anything its easier as moves can be completed so simply - no need to speculate about what might happen in 5 months time as it'll happen swiftly if its going to.

[Syrette]

Don't really agree with the OPl.

 

The managers should be able to make do with what they've got. It is unfortunate if a new manager comes in between a window but it is the same for every club. It's a level playing field. A good club wouldn't expect or want to find itself in a situation where it has to find a new man between windows anyway.

 

What about the players? You'd see more out of form players shipped out instead of being given a chance. This would also naturally lead to more and more spending as more transfers take place and money comes in and out of clubs, which for most clubs isn't really a good thing.

 

And what about us fans? We'd see our team dismantled and disrupted. I'd rather all transfers be kept to either a short period (the January window) or an out of season one (Summer window) to minimise disruption during the season. I know I sometimes wish we could bring in players to cover for injuries etc during the season, but a good club will try to prepare itself for such eventualities during the windows.

[Syrette]

I find it really strange the way many talk about all-year transfers as though its some bizarre idea that would disrupt the game - we managed for over a century without any difficulty. There is a lot to be said for the idea that this system is what serves to distort the market - that wild, dangerous financial behaviour is encouraged by its existence, with a game of chicken played between buying and selling parties.

 

There wasn't the same sort of money being thrown around until recently. I'm not saying not having it would be the worst thing ever by the way, far from it. I don't have any real problems at the moment with its existence either is all.

[80]

Don't really agree with the OP at all.

 

The managers should be able to make do with what they've got.

 

Why should they? And why have a January transfer window, then?

 

It is unfortunate if a new manager comes in between a window but it is the same for every club. It's a level playing field.

 

Its the same for every club in a free system, too, so that's irrelevant.

 

A good club wouldn't expect or want to find itself in a situation where it has to find a new man between windows anyway.

 

 

And yet most do. It is often noted that the best performing clubs have the longest-serving managers; it could thus be thought that the poorer clubs, who are in a state of disruption as they have to sack the bad mangers they generally have to choose from are further disadvantaged by the system's entrenchment of their destability; bad managers managing teams that aren't even theirs, so they're kept on for longer, allowed a couple of precious windows to bring their own bad players in before the cycle is commenced all over again.

 

What about the players? You'd see more out of form players shipped out instead of being given a chance.

 

Was this more the case prior to 2002/3?

 

This would also naturally lead to more and more spending as more transfers take place and money comes in and out of clubs, which for most clubs isn't really a good thing.

 

 

How much did Roy Keane spend on how many players at Sunderland, again?

 

And what about us fans? We'd see our team dismantled and disrupted. I'd rather all transfers be kept to either a short period (the January window) or an out of season one (Summer window) to minimise disruption during the season. I know I sometimes wish we could bring in players to cover for injuries etc during the season, but a good club will try to prepare itself for such eventualities during the windows.

 

As a Newcastle supporter, you of all people must know how often teams can be dismantled and disrupted under this system.

 

I am particularly embittered by this system as I feel it gave the old board (yeah yeah, blah blah) the excuse to evade the transfer issue, ultimately leading to the ignominious sacking of Bobby Robson. I directly associate it with our downfall.

[80]

I find it really strange the way many talk about all-year transfers as though its some bizarre idea that would disrupt the game - we managed for over a century without any difficulty. There is a lot to be said for the idea that this system is what serves to distort the market - that wild, dangerous financial behaviour is encouraged by its existence, with a game of chicken played between buying and selling parties.

 

There wasn't the same sort of money being thrown around until recently. I'm not saying not having it would be the worst thing ever by the way, far from it. I don't have any real problems at the moment with its existence either is all.

 

People said similar things about money in 2002. Its all relative. As I say, it can be thought that the regulation contributes to the dominance of money, helping to remove shrewdly-timed deals from the game and allowing the super-rich to only have to employ blocking tactics for a couple of months a year (I seem to remember Chez gave a good exposition as to why transfers won't take place until late in the Summer a while back, if that rings any bells).

[Syrette]

Don't really agree with the OP at all.

 

The managers should be able to make do with what they've got.

 

Why should they? And why have a January transfer window, then?

 

Because it's just how it is, for every club. It's never ideal but a good manager can usually deal with what's he got and then customise it more to his liking when the window opens. The January window allows them to chop and change things mid-season and make changes if there is a need to bring replacements in or people as cover.

 

It is unfortunate if a new manager comes in between a window but it is the same for every club. It's a level playing field.

 

Its the same for every club in a free system, too, so that's irrelevant.

 

I only mentioned it at all because the OP did.

 

A good club wouldn't expect or want to find itself in a situation where it has to find a new man between windows anyway.

 

 

And yet most do. It is often noted that the best performing clubs have the longest-serving managers; it could thus be thought that the poorer clubs, who are in a state of disruption as they have to sack the bad mangers they generally have to choose from are further disadvantaged by the system's entrenchment of their destability; bad managers managing teams that aren't even theirs, so they're kept on for longer, allowed a couple of precious windows to bring their own bad players in before the cycle is commenced all over again.

 

Most do? Not sure about that...

 

What about the players? You'd see more out of form players shipped out instead of being given a chance.

 

Was this more the case prior to 2002/3?

 

This would also naturally lead to more and more spending as more transfers take place and money comes in and out of clubs, which for most clubs isn't really a good thing.

 

 

How much did Roy Keane spend on how many players at Sunderland, again?

 

Probably about the same if not less than he would have spent if the windows weren't there. I don't know.

 

And what about us fans? We'd see our team dismantled and disrupted. I'd rather all transfers be kept to either a short period (the January window) or an out of season one (Summer window) to minimise disruption during the season. I know I sometimes wish we could bring in players to cover for injuries etc during the season, but a good club will try to prepare itself for such eventualities during the windows.

 

As a Newcastle supporter, you of all people must know how often teams can be dismantled and disrupted under this system.

 

I am particularly embittered by this system as I feel it gave the old board (yeah yeah, blah blah) the excuse to evade the transfer issue, ultimately leading to the ignominious sacking of Bobby Robson. I directly associate it with our downfall.

 

I didn't say having windows doesn't disrupt things either - that's the nature of transfers as a whole.

 

 

You make good and fair points. I just don't have a big problem with the windows either. To each their own.

[Guest Brazilianbob]

I detest the transfer window.  We should get rid and go back to the old system that worked perfectly well for over a century.  It could be argued that many bright young players at lower league clubs miss out on their chance of stardom because of the transfer window.  An example is the player who is playing out of his skin and attracts the attention of the big clubs.  He then breaks his leg before the transfer opens and never gets his big break (excuse the pun).  If there was no transfer window he could have signed for a top club and never break his leg and goes on to stardom.  Obviously he could then break his leg and fade into obscurity, but at least he got his chance.

[Fatwax]

Surely prices would go down rather than increase, since clubs aren't under a time limit to sign players, causing the selling club to hold the buying one to ransom..

 

I liked it when we didn't have transfer windows.

[Yorkie]

I'd still keep it, but have it as June 1st (or whatever it is), until December 1st, and then that's it till next June. There's no need to close it at the end of the summer, you need more time to amass a squad than a couple of months in my opinion. Keep it until Christmas time, and then you're set. If you haven't sorted things by then, then it's your own fault.

 

The January thing is just embarrassing generally and makes a mockery of it. The idea is to try and lessen inflation whereas the January window merely enhances it. Teams don't want to sell their best players in the middle of the season and when there's the likes of Chelsea sniffing around, asking prices go up considerably and it's just a money-fest. I swear when Essien was at Lyon, and Manu first went after him, he was mootd at around £12m. Chelsea bidded and bidded and ended up paying £32m or something daft. That's what happens; January is a load of bollocks.

[Ronaldo]

Essien was bought in August though 

[Yorkie]

Essien was bought in August though 

 

Really? Meh. Anelka then.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Essien was bought in August though 

 

Really? Meh. Anelka then.

Anelka only cost 15 million pounds. That really isn't a very high price for a player of his calibre.

[Pilko]

Essien was bought in August though 

 

Really? Meh. Anelka then.

Anelka only cost 15 million pounds. That really isn't a very high price for a player of his calibre.

 

Darren Bent was £16.5m....