WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Having a pop at West Ham and Portsmouth for spending silly money. Fair enough they've overspent on more than 2 players, but who is he to criticise when he forks out £11.5m for Chopra and Richardson? Pompey paid £1.5m more for Sulley Muntari than the unwashed did for Richardson. Never seen Muntari play like, but on reputation I'd take him over Richardson anyday. Link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=471129&in_page_id=1779 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 not our fault that good players want to go to better clubs than the mackems Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Fair enough they've overspent on more than 2 players, but who is he to criticise when he forks out £11.5m for Chopra and Richardson? Still shocks me everytime I see that! To think we got Viduka, Rozza, Barton and Geremi with change to spare! Should be fun watching Keane spit his dummy out, when it all turns to shit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
safc Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 It's a wierd one, I can see where Quinn is coming from in that, now, transfer fees are verging on the rediculous for even the average player. And I do feel that West Ham bidding anything for anyone who can kick a ball has had some affect, but there has been a steady rise over the past few seasons, where the likes over Chelsea have massively overspent. The recent influx of yet more Sky money and new investment was always going to drive up prices again, as more people want 'a bigger slice of the pie'. And so they will spens more money to get average players after their agents have overstated their case to make them seem better than they are, to also get a bigger wedge. I can't help but think that Quinn has come into this season very niavely, about what he expected money wise. We've seemingly tried to go cheap (more than one bid for Nugent, Gordon and Baines points to this) and then all of a sudden seemingly paniced and gone and splashed £5M on a below average striker at this level. And then gone and spent £5.5M on Richardson. Players who just a few years ago wouldn't have sold for more than £3M at an absolute maximum. This makes Quinn look stupid in what he says while at the same time he is saying how many people see the sitiuation. Unfortunately for Quinn he can't have it both ways, and he should learn to keep his mouth shut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 You could argue that the behaviour of Portsmouth and West Ham have forced them to have to spend those amounts on Chopra and Richardson though. If Nugent cost £6 million then Chopra's price was always going to go up because he actually scored more goals last season. Chopra also has the experience of being a part of a premiership club, albeit he didn't play much, but Nugent hasn't even tasted the top level at all. So using these kinds of arguments Cardiff were always going to take the mick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I don't know why Spurs never get accused of overspending. They've probably spent more than us, west ham, portsmouth, man city and villa all backed by billionaires just on Darren Bent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I'm not sure if this argument works "It's not an unreasonable price because such and such also paid an unreasonable price for a some other no-mark." Does it work the other way, "Well Viduka cost nothing so the mackems should have been paid at least a couple of million for taking Richardon" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I'm not sure if this argument works "It's not an unreasonable price because such and such also paid an unreasonable price for a some other no-mark." Does it work the other way, "Well Viduka cost nothing so the mackems should have been paid at least a couple of million for taking Richardon" Um ... Viduka wasn't owned by anyone though. He was a free agent with no contract with any other club. Borough didn't just give him to us free of charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 It's a wierd one, I can see where Quinn is coming from in that, now, transfer fees are verging on the rediculous for even the average player. And I do feel that West Ham bidding anything for anyone who can kick a ball has had some affect, but there has been a steady rise over the past few seasons, where the likes over Chelsea have massively overspent. The recent influx of yet more Sky money and new investment was always going to drive up prices again, as more people want 'a bigger slice of the pie'. And so they will spens more money to get average players after their agents have overstated their case to make them seem better than they are, to also get a bigger wedge. I can't help but think that Quinn has come into this season very niavely, about what he expected money wise. We've seemingly tried to go cheap (more than one bid for Nugent, Gordon and Baines points to this) and then all of a sudden seemingly paniced and gone and splashed £5M on a below average striker at this level. And then gone and spent £5.5M on Richardson. Players who just a few years ago wouldn't have sold for more than £3M at an absolute maximum. This makes Quinn look stupid in what he says while at the same time he is saying how many people see the sitiuation. Unfortunately for Quinn he can't have it both ways, and he should learn to keep his mouth shut. Its crazy. Chelsea over spending pushed the prices up, and TBF to them, it needed doing at the time. Football was dying, especially at lower level due to the ITV collapse in the Country, and Chelsea came in, started spending big, and that eventually filtered into all levels brining the game back round. But now they've stopped spending at WHU and the likes of have come in and with extra TV money and its gone crazy again. But it means the average to good are well over priced as thats what these teams are looking at, while the worldclass and expectational are cheaper since the likes of Chelsea are not spending huge amounts at the moment. Shown by the moves of Bent and Henry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I don't know why Spurs never get accused of overspending. They've probably spent more than us, west ham, portsmouth, man city and villa all backed by billionaires just on Darren Bent. The thing is, Bent is a proven goalscorer in the Premiership, and he's only going to get better playing in a better team. Last season they spent less than 15m on Berb and Chimbonda, now they could get more than 30m for them. Plus they've finished 5th the past 2 season, should have been 4th in one occasion, so they're obviously doing something right. Spurs and Sunderland both overpaid by about 4m on Bent and Chopra & Richardson, but I know which one will turn out to be better value for money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 For a Chairman who doesn't want to interfere in the footballing side of things at Sunderland, he does an awful lot of talking to papers and stuff. He should learn from Shepherd that Football Fans very quickly tire of Chairmen who do all the talking above the managers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 For a Chairman who doesn't want to interfere in the footballing side of things at Sunderland, he does an awful lot of talking to papers and stuff. He should learn from Shepherd that Football Fans very quickly tire of Chairmen who do all the talking above the managers. He loves his ego trips Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShearMagic Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I can see where he is coming from, and it echoes my sentiments. But you gotta laugh, does he not realise they paid 5m for Chopra and 5.5m for Richardson? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 SSN - response from Redknapp! * It's nothing to do with Niall Quinn * They matched our bid for David Nugent * Have they overpaid for Michael Chopra? Only time will tell. Spot on, 'Arry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 "If I was going to spend a fortune breaking the bank, I would be going after the players Liverpool or Man United want to sign" i'm glad we've changed the tactics personally. we may be losing out now, but if we can have a club making a profit, with very little to no debt with a wage structure i'd be in fantasy land. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 i'm glad we've changed the tactics personally. we may be losing out now, but if we can have a club making a profit, with very little to no debt with a wage structure i'd be in fantasy land. Might be a reason why Sam's so willing to get rid of Dyer, maybe Ashley's review has shown him how bad the wage structure is and has had a word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 For a Chairman who doesn't want to interfere in the footballing side of things at Sunderland, he does an awful lot of talking to papers and stuff. He should learn from Shepherd that Football Fans very quickly tire of Chairmen who do all the talking above the managers. True, thank god we never suffered from having gobshite chairman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 You could argue that the behaviour of Portsmouth and West Ham have forced them to have to spend those amounts on Chopra and Richardson though. If Nugent cost £6 million then Chopra's price was always going to go up because he actually scored more goals last season. Chopra also has the experience of being a part of a premiership club, albeit he didn't play much, but Nugent hasn't even tasted the top level at all. So using these kinds of arguments Cardiff were always going to take the mick. 2003-4 season, Ameobi outscored Rooney. Doesn't mean Sven should have sent Ameobi to Euro 2004 and that Ferguson should have paid £30m for Ameobi instead of Rooney though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wally_McFool Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Cant believe Quinn accused West Ham of spending silly money considering they have only spent about 2 million quid when all of the comings and goings balance themselves out. The daft get! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJbarnes Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I don't know why Spurs never get accused of overspending. They've probably spent more than us, west ham, portsmouth, man city and villa all backed by billionaires just on Darren Bent. i agree- dont forget they also spent £10m on gareth bale, and younes kaboul, tarabt and others/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now