More transfer rumours

[buzza]

Backbone of the team for next season:

Trippier, Burn, Targett, Bruno, ASM and Big Joe.  Depending on whether Eddie is comfy with ASM being an attacking outlet only...

 

New:

Goalkeeper, Centre forward, centre back, defensive midfielder, right and left wingers.

 

Fighting for a place in the team:

Dubs, Fraser, Willock, Manquillo, Calum, Murphy, Schar, Shelvey

 

Rest can be fed to pigs or try and get some peanuts for them...

[macphisto]

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by macphisto

[arnonel]

Prefer we buy Southampton Shearer and not Blackburn Shearer. That is the way

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There’s no way our budget is £50m, we have to tell people we won’t spend much to try and keep the prices reasonable. Silly for journalists to print it like a fact. 

[macphisto]

14 minutes ago, arnonel said:

Prefer we buy Southampton Shearer and not Blackburn Shearer. That is the way

Not all the time as you are taking a risk with Southampton Shearer whereas the Blackburn Shearer was almost guaranteed to score you goals. Southampton Shearer could easily have turned out to be a Sheffield David Hirst who was just as highly rated around that time. 

 

In my original message, I got the Ferdinand fee wrong. £67 million was the fee to Spurs, the fee from QPR to Newcastle was nearly £94 million.

[KaKa]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

 

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

 

 

 

 

[Holmesy]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

Interesting article in the Athletic about what players would go for now. Shearer is estimated to be worth £222 million and Les Ferdinand is £67 million. Personally think it would be nearer £170 million for Shearer and £100 million for Ferdinand.

 

Main reason for bringing this up is that it highlights how much we'll have to spend to compete again. Yes, you can try to find your modern day equivalents of Rob Lee but we will have to start spending big sooner rather than later if we are to meet the stated ambitions of the owners. That's why I think talk of a £50 million budget is laughable.

 

 

 

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

 

Exactly!

[macphisto]

1 hour ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

This is the biggest myth in football, it virtually does guarantee success; just look at the Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League most seasons. Even when you have a poor manager, no strategy and are considered to be having a very poor season like Man U, being in 6th place  is still successful in comparison to nearly every other club. I'd also argue that it wouldn't take Man U for example much to make them into a competitive team again. 

 

Closer to home, the most successful team we had in living memory as Newcastle fans is when we spent a lot of money under Keegan. 

 

Yes, you can get someone like Leicester winning the League with minimum spend or Everton spending  a lot and being in trouble but they are both very much exceptions to the rule. Spending money is by far the surest way to win something in football and is indeed becoming almost the only way to do it, certainly on a consistent basis. In my time, I've seen Leeds, Arsenal and possibly Spurs touted as models to follow in regards to buying young players to develop and it never materialised. You could even say the same about Newcastle and the team under Robson.

 

I'm not arguing against smart recruitment, which is why I mentioned Rob Lee, but you also have to spend big at times. Also, a strange perspective on signing a Haaland-type player, looking at what he would bring commercially rather than what he would contribute to the team. They would only be commercially successful if they were successful on the pitch. 

 

It's great where Arsenal, Wolves and West Ham are in the league but that is not the stated ambitions of our owners "to be the best at football and challenge for trophies." 

 

Internally within the club I'd like to think they'd be looking to compete with West Ham and Wolves next season if we make some good signings in the summer, bouncing around between 6th to 10th place. To do that will still involve a decent expenditure in the summer time.

 

If we do finish between 6th and 10th and want to seriously challenge those above us after the summer of 2023 then it would be unavoidable that we'll have to spend big money.

 

I don't know why so many people have such a problem wanting to spend a lot of money. No one cared when we did it under Keegan which for 99% of fans who lived through those times is by far the best time supporting the club.

[SUPERTOON]

2 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

 

 

 

 

But not spending big does guarantee mediocrity at best.

[The College Dropout]

3 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

There’s no way our budget is £50m, we have to tell people we won’t spend much to try and keep the prices reasonable. Silly for journalists to print it like a fact. 

Aye. 50m is a promoted club type spending.

2 hours ago, Holmesy said:

Intelligent scouting is the key. Bruno cost around £30m - a Brazilian international CM for relative peanuts. Trippier cost us around £12m

If players of that calibre are available for that sort of money, you don't need to spend £100m+ per player to compete. When we get to the point where we need to boost commercial revenue by signing big names, we might need to cough up big for a Haaland-type but I think we can break into the top 6 with a relatively modest spend (and by relatively modest i'm talking £100-150m). Breaking into the top 4 might take a bit more but then look at Arsenal - their squad isn't amazing and they sit in 4th spot. Most of their star players have come through their youth ranks. Wolves have also built a quality squad through good scouting and great links in Portugal, and not buying other club's ready-made stars.  

 

 

Manchester United are 6th, Spurs 5th and spent £190m this year and already have at least 1 world class player.

 

I agree though. 150m in the summer is a good number.

 

Arsenal's first choice back 5 must cost £120m. Wages are massive across the squad. Losing money this year. And have at least 3 great wonderkids on the books via the academy.

 

I look at West Ham. It's a long way to catch up.

[KaKa]

36 minutes ago, macphisto said:

This is the biggest myth in football, it virtually does guarantee success; just look at the Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League most seasons. Even when you have a poor manager, no strategy and are considered to be having a very poor season like Man U, being in 6th place  is still successful in comparison to nearly every other club. I'd also argue that it wouldn't take Man U for example much to make them into a competitive team again. 

 

Closer to home, the most successful team we had in living memory as Newcastle fans is when we spent a lot of money under Keegan. 

 

Yes, you can get someone like Leicester winning the League with minimum spend or Everton spending  a lot and being in trouble but they are both very much exceptions to the rule. Spending money is by far the surest way to win something in football and is indeed becoming almost the only way to do it, certainly on a consistent basis. In my time, I've seen Leeds, Arsenal and possibly Spurs touted as models to follow in regards to buying young players to develop and it never materialised. You could even say the same about Newcastle and the team under Robson.

 

I'm not arguing against smart recruitment, which is why I mentioned Rob Lee, but you also have to spend big at times. Also, a strange perspective on signing a Haaland-type player, looking at what he would bring commercially rather than what he would contribute to the team. They would only be commercially successful if they were successful on the pitch. 

 

It's great where Arsenal, Wolves and West Ham are in the league but that is not the stated ambitions of our owners "to be the best at football and challenge for trophies." 

 

Internally within the club I'd like to think they'd be looking to compete with West Ham and Wolves next season if we make some good signings in the summer, bouncing around between 6th to 10th place. To do that will still involve a decent expenditure in the summer time.

 

If we do finish between 6th and 10th and want to seriously challenge those above us after the summer of 2023 then it would be unavoidable that we'll have to spend big money.

 

I don't know why so many people have such a problem wanting to spend a lot of money. No one cared when we did it under Keegan which for 99% of fans who lived through those times is by far the best time supporting the club.

 

Spending big does not guarantee success at all. Having the right manager, good recruitment and spending in the right areas is what is needed. Money needs to be spent, but it needs to be done correctly more importantly, and not just spending big. Look at the state of the current Everton team for goodness sake. They have spent incredible amounts irresponsibly and are in a complete mess for it.

 

Your initial post was talking about players in the £100 million bracket ... I mean are you serious? If you think we can't compete unless we're buying players in that bracket, that is ridiculous IMO.

[The College Dropout]

I think 50m+ is a possibility. Phillips, Rice, Raphinha, Nunez would cost that much or more.

[greydos]

20 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big does not guarantee success at all. Having the right manager, good recruitment and spending in the right areas is what is needed. Money needs to be spent, but it needs to be done correctly more importantly, and not just spending big. Look at the state of the current Everton team for goodness sake. They have spent incredible amounts irresponsibly and are in a complete mess for it.

 

Your initial post was talking about players in the £100 million bracket ... I mean are you serious? If you think we can't compete unless we're buying players in that bracket, that is ridiculous IMO.

I think you’re both right. Ultimately spending his is a pre-requisite for success, but not a guarantee of success.

[macphisto]

3 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big does not guarantee success at all. Having the right manager, good recruitment and spending in the right areas is what is needed. Money needs to be spent, but it needs to be done correctly more importantly, and not just spending big. Look at the state of the current Everton team for goodness sake. They have spent incredible amounts irresponsibly and are in a complete mess for it.

 

Your initial post was talking about players in the £100 million bracket ... I mean are you serious? If you think we can't compete unless we're buying players in that bracket, that is ridiculous IMO.

How is that ridiculous when every team we will be competing against will have a few players, possibly more than a few, worth £100 million???? You can't get to the stated aims of the owners, starting from where we are without doing that in the next year or two.  Also why are you ignoring what I said, I'll repeat for the 3rd time that yes you'll need smart recruitment like Rob Lee but we'll also have to spend a lot of money. 

 

The four best strikers I have seen in my lifetime are Beardsley, Cole, Ferdinand and Shearer. Based on your thinking we would never have signed Ferdinand and Shearer when we did. 

 

You can quote Everton, but I'll give you this list from the last 10 years. Some teams have won more than others but that's when structure, philosophy and managers come into play. 

 

The top 10 highest spending clubs in world football
1. Manchester City - £1.38bn – 260 arrivals

2. Chelsea - £1.33bn – 342 arrivals

3. Barcelona - £1.28bn – 156 arrivals

4. Manchester United - £1.24bn – 167 arrivals

5. Juventus - £1.24bn – 533 arrivals

6. Paris Saint-Germain - £1.17bn – 177 arrivals

7. Atletico Madrid - £940m – 216 arrivals

8. Real Madrid - £920m – 133 arrivals

9. Arsenal - £890m – 195 arrivals

10. AS Roma - £870m – 508 arrivals

 

Liverpool are not on the list but they spent when they had to on Van Dijk and Alisson. 

 

It's dreamland to think we can somehow buck the trend of every other successful team. 

 

[FloydianMag]

3 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

Spending big doesn't guarantee anything.

 

 

 

 

 

No, however it’s a nice option to have, should it really be needed.

[macphisto]

5 minutes ago, greydos said:

I think you’re both right. Ultimately spending his is a pre-requisite for success, but not a guarantee of success.

I think this used to be true but I honestly think it's changing more and more and this is where Ambramovich and Abu Dhabi distorted the market. Chelsea and Man City have no qualms about throwing money at it until they do get success. Look at how much Man City spent on full backs until they got the right players. 

 

Personally, the best model to follow is the Liverpool model in my opinion but at times they have still splashed the cash when they had to. 

[andyc35i]

20 minutes ago, TotalWar said:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2011&saison_id_bis=2021&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0
 

spend of clubs in premier league over the last ten years.

you can compare the points gained over that period to see how it correlates.

Liecester are the only outlier.

Assume this includes our £90m outlay in January? If you take that away, we sit below Southampton which is pretty funny 

[KaKa]

35 minutes ago, macphisto said:

How is that ridiculous when every team we will be competing against will have a few players, possibly more than a few, worth £100 million???? You can't get to the stated aims of the owners, starting from where we are without doing that in the next year or two.  Also why are you ignoring what I said, I'll repeat for the 3rd time that yes you'll need smart recruitment like Rob Lee but we'll also have to spend a lot of money. 

 

The four best strikers I have seen in my lifetime are Beardsley, Cole, Ferdinand and Shearer. Based on your thinking we would never have signed Ferdinand and Shearer when we did. 

 

You can quote Everton, but I'll give you this list from the last 10 years. Some teams have won more than others but that's when structure, philosophy and managers come into play. 

 

The top 10 highest spending clubs in world football
1. Manchester City - £1.38bn – 260 arrivals

2. Chelsea - £1.33bn – 342 arrivals

3. Barcelona - £1.28bn – 156 arrivals

4. Manchester United - £1.24bn – 167 arrivals

5. Juventus - £1.24bn – 533 arrivals

6. Paris Saint-Germain - £1.17bn – 177 arrivals

7. Atletico Madrid - £940m – 216 arrivals

8. Real Madrid - £920m – 133 arrivals

9. Arsenal - £890m – 195 arrivals

10. AS Roma - £870m – 508 arrivals

 

Liverpool are not on the list but they spent when they had to on Van Dijk and Alisson. 

 

It's dreamland to think we can somehow buck the trend of every other successful team. 

 

 

We absolutely do not need to buy players currently worth £100 million to compete. I think that is ridiculous.

 

The key is identifying players with that kind of ability that are on the rise and can be bought before they have hit those kind of sums.

 

Building up the squad with players similar to the profile of Guimaraes is exactly what we should be aiming to do right now, and we will be well on our way.

 

Ironically Liverpool under Klopp are mostly made up of players that were not considered at the very top tier at the time they were bought, but grew into that. Both Salah and Mane cost in the £30 millions. That is the sort of approach we should be going with.

[macphisto]

Just now, KaKa said:

 

We absolutely do not need to buy players currently worth £100 million to compete. I think that is ridiculous.

 

The key is identifying players with that kind of ability that are on the rise and can be bought before they have hit those kind of sums.

 

Building up the squad with players similar to the profile of Guimaraes is exactly what we should be aiming to do right now, and we will be well on our way.

 

Ironically Liverpool under Klopp are mostly made up of players that were not considered at the very top tier at the time they were bought, but grew into that. Both Salah and Mane cost in the £30 millions. That is the sort of approach we should be going with.

Fair enough, every other top club has it wrong. Salah and Mane were four and five years ago, they would be a lot more now. I have mentioned Rob Lee numerous times as an example of players we can also aim for but you just ignore it. What would Van Dijk and Allison go for now? An example where they had to spend big money, it's unavoidable if you want to win things. 

 

I am not saying this summer but we'll definitely have to start spending a lot of money next year if we want to reach the owners stated ambitions. As daft as this may sound, £30/£40 million pound players will only get you so far in this league. I doubt it would get you competing consistently for Champions League positions and you certainly wouldn't be anywhere near winning the league. 

 

Name one club that has consistently competed in England without spending a lot of money? You can't as there isn't a team like that unless you go back to before the Premier League.

 

FA cup winners: Usual top spenders apart Everton 1995, Wigan 2013 and Leicester 2021

Premier League winners: Usual top spenders apart from Leicester 2016

Champions League: Almost always the top spenders qualify and certainly the top spenders win it.

 

 

[KaKa]

11 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Fair enough, every other top club has it wrong. Salah and Mane were four and five years ago, they would be a lot more now. I have mentioned Rob Lee numerous times as an example of players we can also aim for but you just ignore it. What would Van Dijk and Allison go for now? An example where they had to spend big money, it's unavoidable if you want to win things. 

 

I am not saying this summer but we'll definitely have to start spending a lot of money next year if we want to reach the owners stated ambitions. As daft as this may sound, £30/£40 million pound players will only get you so far in this league. I doubt it would get you competing consistently for Champions League positions and you certainly wouldn't be anywhere near winning the league. 

 

Name one club that has consistently competed in England without spending a lot of money? You can't as there isn't a team like that unless you go back to before the Premier League.

 

FA cup winners: Usual top spenders apart Everton 1995, Wigan 2013 and Leicester 2021

Premier League winners: Usual top spenders apart from Leicester 2016

Champions League: Almost always the top spenders qualify and certainly the top spenders win it.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't spend. I just don't believe it has to be in the £100 million bracket when we're talking about individual players.

 

I think we'd be infinitely closer to our goals bringing in 3 - 5 players with a £100 million consistently rather than spending that kind of money on one individual player.

 

I think perhaps when we get to the point where we have a great team in place, and we are in and around the mix of challenging for things, and we maybe feel we need one special player to get us over the hump, then maybe at that point we make that kind of signing. But for now I don't think it's the way to go.

[macphisto]

30 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't spend. I just don't believe it has to be in the £100 million bracket when we're talking about individual players.

 

I think we'd be infinitely closer to our goals bringing in 3 - 5 players with a £100 million consistently rather than spending that kind of money on one individual player.

 

I think perhaps when we get to the point where we have a great team in place, and we are in and around the mix of challenging for things, and we maybe feel we need one special player to get us over the hump, then maybe at that point we make that kind of signing. But for now I don't think it's the way to go.

I can see where you're coming from but I'd like to think with the right people in place and a vision to sell that next summer we could be in for say Bellingham (just using him as an example). You're then talking about £80 million+ a player by next summer.

 

It shows you how football prices have risen that £30-£40 million potentially doesn't get you much. It's a risky price bracket where you'll hit and miss. Willock was £25 million and he's an average player.  I know you can point at Bruno but you're not going to get many Brazilian internationals for that price and also we're all getting carried away with him, myself included; we don't know how he's going to settle long-term.  Another thing to consider is that should we spend say £100-£150 million this summer on 4-5 players then we'd be struggling to significantly upgrade the team next summer if we stuck to that same transfer plan. 

 

Personally, I hope we spend in the region of £150 million on three quality players this summer who would really raise the standard of the team. There's always a risk, but in general the more you pay the greater the possibility they'll be a success.

 

I know these figures are ridiculous, easy for me to say £150 million but we've all heard where the owners want to be in the future. Also, based on my knowledge of Saudi Arabia, they're not going to mess around. 

[STM]

It's about stages though isn't it? It would be pointless spending 100m on signing say Bellingham, only for him to playing alongside Shelvey, if Bruno is injured for example.

 

We need to build a strong squad of players, international players even. We signed Trippier and Bruno for less than 50m for example, I'd wager those two players would have a bigger impact than one "star" signing.

 

Hopefully one day we will be in a position where we are looking at signing one or two "stars" who take us to next level.

 

The main issue I can see is signing a striker. A good goalscorer can cost you twice as much as any other position on the pitch, even an average one. That's the biggest issue we face this summer.

[macphisto]

50 minutes ago, STM said:

It's about stages though isn't it? It would be pointless spending 100m on signing say Bellingham, only for him to playing alongside Shelvey, if Bruno is injured for example.

 

We need to build a strong squad of players, international players even. We signed Trippier and Bruno for less than 50m for example, I'd wager those two players would have a bigger impact than one "star" signing.

 

Hopefully one day we will be in a position where we are looking at signing one or two "stars" who take us to next level.

 

The main issue I can see is signing a striker. A good goalscorer can cost you twice as much as any other position on the pitch, even an average one. That's the biggest issue we face this summer.

I agree on stages which is why we'll only be able to attract or even be in the hunt for the top youngsters next summer 2023. By then I'd like to think we'll have a good structure in place and a vision to sell.

 

The example you use is where I differ. Next summer I'd much rather have say Bruno and Bellingham (I'm not hung up on Bellingham, just used as an example) as 1st choice with Shelvey/Willock as back up rather than replace the whole midfield with £30/£40 million players who are much of a muchness and then move up a level. It's false economy to some extent and delays the process. Obviously I'm relying on luck to an extent with regards to injuries but I'd risk it.

 

I agree about a striker, going to cost a fair bit.

[madras]

If Bellingham were to come here, is he aware of his name change ?