Amir_9 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 First memory of Sturridge was a late goal for Man City against Blackburn at Ewood. Knew the lad was class from then onwards, would be chuffed if we get him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Our only financial crisis is Ashley's unwillingness to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 What's our turnover, though? It's probably £100m+, with wages of £60m+ or so. That's a decent ratio and allows us room to invest, but it's not like we can afford to put all our eggs in one basket. I hope we're making a profit without having to resort to sales because that's the only way we'll be able to continually invest in the squad. And like it or not, relegation probably cost us £40m or so, and that's something that I see Ashley wanting to recoup (even though it was his own fault that we got relegated in the first place). You look at clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd: both clubs make a profit off the pitch which is used to invest in players. That's where we'll end up in a year or two, in my opinion. We can't afford to go down the Shepherd route of spending more than we have because Villa and Sunderland have tried that route and they will have to scale back eventually or have their owners continue pumping in money (which is unsustainable, especially when they can't break the top 4). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Said in the Euro U-21 thread we should be after him if he could be convinced to join. Still think so. Considering we've just about broken even with transfers so far I don't see why the money wouldn't be there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Totally agree with Wullie. Sturridge is just what we need and should be at least trying to get him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'm also not sure whether following Man Utd's strategy seems to be a good idea. They can afford to blow money on these players because they generate operating profits that can support lavish spending on new players. The last time they spunked this much money they got Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves for £50m+. Only Nani has turned out to be worth it and yet they're still financially fine. They're already spending £50m+ this summer (De Gea, Young and Jones) and Young's the only one with a track record (and one that I actually think isn't good enough for Man Utd). I'm not sure whether we're capable of blowing £15m on a player and giving him ridiculous wages (which, let's face it, Sturridge will certainly have to be on) when our financial situation is still uncertain. This. I just can't agree with that at all. I don't see our financial situation as uncertain in the slightest relative to the rest of the league, especially given the Carroll money. At what point does believing Ashley's spin stop? Are we still going to be hearing this in five years time after another tenth place finish? Interesting that selling AC was defended on the basis of "it'll give us money to strengthen the squad in summer" and now there's a lad who might be available with similar potential for nearly half the money and suddenly "we can't afford it". I know it sounds like I'm going on about Carroll but sorry, I don't accept that we cannot afford to spend that money. A club of our turnover should be looking to spend £15m minimum in a summer window even before we receive a penny in incoming funds. I'm very risk averse when it comes to players' fees and all that really. So I'm not really comfortable spending £20 million for a single player, not when we had just finished our first season back in the PL. £15 million is my limit like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Here's my rough calculation about the real cost of getting Sturridge: Transfer fee=20m Wages=100k X 52 weeks X 5 years=26m Total cost=46m It does seems to be quite risky to me. I'd go for Wickham instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I see us as a bigger, financially-stronger version of Everton in a couple of years time. They spend within their means but can still make the £10-15m signings as well as keep their best players, pay good wages and can put up a challenge for the top 6. Since we have a bigger stadium and greater revenues, I see us challenging for 6th in a year or two's time and still have the capacity to push on - the capacity that Everton obviously don't have. Maybe I'm in dreamland here and Ashley will probably fuck it up by doing something stupid like he's done every single year, but it's not too unrealistic to expect us to be a bigger version of Everton in two years. And a bigger version of Everton is pretty much one good season away from breaking the top 4 much like Spurs did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 No way in fuck fart hell Ashley would sanction 100k/wk for him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 How do we know he will cost 20 mil and would demand 100k a week? Where has all this come from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Ebanks Blake - £3million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 What's our turnover, though? It's probably £100m+, with wages of £60m+ or so. That's a decent ratio and allows us room to invest, but it's not like we can afford to put all our eggs in one basket. I hope we're making a profit without having to resort to sales because that's the only way we'll be able to continually invest in the squad. And like it or not, relegation probably cost us £40m or so, and that's something that I see Ashley wanting to recoup (even though it was his own fault that we got relegated in the first place). You look at clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd: both clubs make a profit off the pitch which is used to invest in players. That's where we'll end up in a year or two, in my opinion. We can't afford to go down the Shepherd route of spending more than we have because Villa and Sunderland have tried that route and they will have to scale back eventually or have their owners continue pumping in money (which is unsustainable, especially when they can't break the top 4). More like £45m-£50m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 What's our turnover, though? It's probably £100m+, with wages of £60m+ or so. That's a decent ratio and allows us room to invest, but it's not like we can afford to put all our eggs in one basket. I hope we're making a profit without having to resort to sales because that's the only way we'll be able to continually invest in the squad. And like it or not, relegation probably cost us £40m or so, and that's something that I see Ashley wanting to recoup (even though it was his own fault that we got relegated in the first place). You look at clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd: both clubs make a profit off the pitch which is used to invest in players. That's where we'll end up in a year or two, in my opinion. We can't afford to go down the Shepherd route of spending more than we have because Villa and Sunderland have tried that route and they will have to scale back eventually or have their owners continue pumping in money (which is unsustainable, especially when they can't break the top 4). "but it's not like we can afford to put all our eggs in one basket" This. I really feel very uncomfortable of spending so many money on 1 single player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Here's my rough calculation about the real cost of getting Sturridge: Transfer fee=20m Wages=100k X 52 weeks X 5 years=26m Total cost=46m It does seems to be quite risky to me. I'd go for Wickham instead. That's ridiculous Sturridge at least has Premiership pedigree. Wickham could easily be a complete failure in the Premiership. He's even riskier, even considering the lower wages and transfer fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'm also not sure whether following Man Utd's strategy seems to be a good idea. They can afford to blow money on these players because they generate operating profits that can support lavish spending on new players. The last time they spunked this much money they got Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves for £50m+. Only Nani has turned out to be worth it and yet they're still financially fine. They're already spending £50m+ this summer (De Gea, Young and Jones) and Young's the only one with a track record (and one that I actually think isn't good enough for Man Utd). I'm not sure whether we're capable of blowing £15m on a player and giving him ridiculous wages (which, let's face it, Sturridge will certainly have to be on) when our financial situation is still uncertain. This. I just can't agree with that at all. I don't see our financial situation as uncertain in the slightest relative to the rest of the league, especially given the Carroll money. At what point does believing Ashley's spin stop? Are we still going to be hearing this in five years time after another tenth place finish? Interesting that selling AC was defended on the basis of "it'll give us money to strengthen the squad in summer" and now there's a lad who might be available with similar potential for nearly half the money and suddenly "we can't afford it". I know it sounds like I'm going on about Carroll but sorry, I don't accept that we cannot afford to spend that money. A club of our turnover should be looking to spend £15m minimum in a summer window even before we receive a penny in incoming funds. God, don't make me do this again..... Totally spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 No way in f*** fart hell Ashley would sanction 100k/wk for him Isn't he currently earning 80k per week? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 No way in f*** fart hell Ashley would sanction 100k/wk for him Isn't he currently earning 80k per week? Irrelevant - what he's on now doesn't mean we'd match that as a baseline; with clauses and bonuses it may begin to approach that but 100k or even 80k guaranteed? under mike ashley? I can't see it. Who says he's on 80k, btw? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I see us as a bigger, financially-stronger version of Everton in a couple of years time. They spend within their means but can still make the £10-15m signings as well as keep their best players, pay good wages and can put up a challenge for the top 6. Since we have a bigger stadium and greater revenues, I see us challenging for 6th in a year or two's time and still have the capacity to push on - the capacity that Everton obviously don't have. Maybe I'm in dreamland here and Ashley will probably fuck it up by doing something stupid like he's done every single year, but it's not too unrealistic to expect us to be a bigger version of Everton in two years. And a bigger version of Everton is pretty much one good season away from breaking the top 4 much like Spurs did. Everton hardly spend a penny and they don't keep their best players. Their squad is absolutely tiny. Hence Kenwright being a hate figure. The only thing that keeps Everton where they are is David Moyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Here's my rough calculation about the real cost of getting Sturridge: Transfer fee=20m Wages=100k X 52 weeks X 5 years=26m Total cost=46m It does seems to be quite risky to me. I'd go for Wickham instead. That's ridiculous Sturridge at least has Premiership pedigree. Wickham could easily be a complete failure in the Premiership. He's even riskier, even with the lower wages and transfer fee. I have given the same argument for selling Carroll: you never know what will happen to a player, it could be injury, it could be off-field problems, whatever. It is too risky to rely on only 1 player. The fees gained from Carroll's transfer is to let us diversify the risk. Say we can invest 35m into 4 new youngsters, 2 of them developed into the same class as Carroll while the other 2 failed. If we are going to sign a player which cost similar to Carroll's, THEN WHY SELL CARROLL? Just paid him 80k ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'd love Sturridge here no doubt but £20 million is simply too steep imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 They spent £15m on Fellaini, £9m on Bilyaletdinov, £6m on Heitinga, £11m on Yakubu. They can spend from time to time, even with their £70m-ish turnover. Our turnover is £30m more. We'll be able to spend, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 No way in f*** fart hell Ashley would sanction 100k/wk for him Isn't he currently earning 80k per week? Irrelevant - what he's on now doesn't mean we'd match that as a baseline; with clauses and bonuses it may begin to approach that but 100k or even 80k guaranteed? under mike ashley? I can't see it. Who says he's on 80k, btw? But why Sturridge has to take a pay cut and forgone Champions League matches in order to join us? Just for first team chances? He could get it in Chelsea next season as well. If he joins Newcastle, he must be at least earning the same wages as in Chelsea. That's the minimum. There's reports that he demands 75k to stay at Man City, and in the end Man City refuse to meet, and thus he joins Chelsea for free. That's where the basis of 80k comes from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Just dont think there's any chance whatsoever of us being willing to pay top dollar for Sturridge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'd love Sturridge here no doubt but £20 million is simply too steep imo. He would of been my number one target, given it's our priority position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 When the financial fair play rules kick in, transfer fees will probably start coming down. Whether or not Sturridge is worth £20m as compared to Henderson, it may not be easy to recoup that money in a few years' time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts