*Official* English Football Season 2016-17

[Uppercut]

Lyon reject 35m euro for Lacazette. Incredibly stingy offer from Arsenal imo, reckon he'd fetch 50m+ in the current market for strikers.

 

[Uppercut]

Why? They don't need a bargain. They can afford anyone. The only thing they need is to win more to keep their brand in the forefront and players like Pogba will bring them that. That's all the bottom line you need to know.

It would still be nice to see us negotiate well though. Pogba is worth less and less to us the later we get him, so we should be gradually decreasing our offers from here. Also really just need to look elsewhere, if only for leverage.

 

[Furball]

Why? They don't need a bargain. They can afford anyone. The only thing they need is to win more to keep their brand in the forefront and players like Pogba will bring them that. That's all the bottom line you need to know.

Which is precisely how they're getting trolled. It's how not to conduct transfer business 101.

 

[Furball]

Lyon reject 35m euro for Lacazette. Incredibly stingy offer from Arsenal imo, reckon he'd fetch 50m+ in the current market for strikers.

Can only think Wenger is testing the water as to whether France has gone as mental as the rest of Europe on transfer fees.

edit: had forgotten that Chelsea already signed that Belgian lad from Marseille for €40m during the Euros. €35m for Lacazette is a bit ridiculous in those circumstances.

 

[Tangles]

Whoever's in charge of transfers at Man Utd should be fired.

They're allowing themselves to get utterly trolled over Pogba.

Woodward. Same idiot that's been in charge since Fergie retired.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Woodward. Same idiot that's been in charge since Fergie retired.

he has been very entertaining over the years, not much good for Man U but great for the rest of the country.

 

[Tangles]

he has been very entertaining over the years, not much good for Man U but great for the rest of the country.

I'm surprised the Glazers haven't fired him. I know transfers isn't all he does but it's real money when it's mishandled and the last 3 years haven't exactly been good with poor league finishes under his watch.

 

[Ikki]

It would still be nice to see us negotiate well though. Pogba is worth less and less to us the later we get him, so we should be gradually decreasing our offers from here. Also really just need to look elsewhere, if only for leverage.

I guess you can say that in all cases. United are disadvantaged because they're not in the CL and they still have to keep up the image as the kind of club big stars want to go to. I know this is a sport and we want the best players - and by extension not paying certain players much more than they're worth on the pitch - but it's also a business and it is about branding. Not only do we as fans subconsciously buy into this branding, but so do generations of players. And I know it's fashionable to hate on him now but people have short memories of how good this guy is.

Whether you're paying 100m or 110m it starts to matter less I guess. And there's always the argument that this is simply the reality of the current market. I mean, 79m for Higuain?

For me the only thing I can enjoy as a Liverpool fan is the fact that you gave him away for nothing and are paying all this money to get him back. But can't find much joy in the reality that United are that rich that it doesn't even matter.

Which is precisely how they're getting trolled. It's how not to conduct transfer business 101.

These are clubs worth billions of dollars, I'm sure they have professionals that know how to do business. Ironically, Arsenal fans probably wish they would be a bit loose with the purse strings.

I think if anything the real trolls were the guys who **** teased and left United dry - Muller, Ramos, etc.

 

[Furball]

The Higuain fee is a combination of factors. For a start, it's the team that's finished 2nd selling to the champions, that will drive the fee up substantially (to the point where Juve have had to activate a ludicrous release clause because Napoli, understandably, don't exactly want the deal to go ahead). He's also had the best goal scoring season in Serie A for a loooooong time.

Love the unfounded dig at Arsenal, I can't think of anyone that Arsenal have missed out on in the last few years as a result of Wenger being frugal. He was prepared to pay £40m for Suarez, paid £42m for Ozil and £35m for Alexis, and splashed out £30m on Xhaka this summer.

Sure, United are a big, rich club, but their transfer policy in recent seasons has been a ****ing disaster and their negotiating policy seems to be out of the "cheat at FM and give yourself £500m to spend" playbook. They seem to just cave in to whatever demands are being made of them by clubs in a desperate bid to still appear as if they're a massive club. They did the same with Di Maria 2 years ago and they're being played masterfully by Juventus on the Pogba deal. And with the way the narrative has been in the media, it would be an enormous loss of face for United to now turn round and not seal the deal. That's just bad negotiating.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, there is "sensible overspending", which Man Utd. were the masters of under Ferguson (van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.) and just throwing money at the problem, which is what their approach has been since he retired. Chelsea also had the same approach in Abramovich's early years (2003-2007).

 

[Ikki]

The Higuain fee is a combination of factors. For a start, it's the team that's finished 2nd selling to the champions, that will drive the fee up substantially (to the point where Juve have had to activate a ludicrous release clause because Napoli, understandably, don't exactly want the deal to go ahead). He's also had the best goal scoring season in Serie A for a loooooong time.

Love the unfounded dig at Arsenal, I can't think of anyone that Arsenal have missed out on in the last few years as a result of Wenger being frugal. He was prepared to pay £40m for Suarez, paid £42m for Ozil and £35m for Alexis, and splashed out £30m on Xhaka this summer.

Sure, United are a big, rich club, but their transfer policy in recent seasons has been a ****ing disaster and their negotiating policy seems to be out of the "cheat at FM and give yourself £500m to spend" playbook. They seem to just cave in to whatever demands are being made of them by clubs in a desperate bid to still appear as if they're a massive club. They did the same with Di Maria 2 years ago and they're being played masterfully by Juventus on the Pogba deal. And with the way the narrative has been in the media, it would be an enormous loss of face for United to now turn round and not seal the deal. That's just bad negotiating.

Eh, it's true about the rivals but no matter who came for him it would have been expensive. 79m for a soon to be 29 year old forward is a shitload, especially for a club from Italy that doesn't make as much as one in the EPL. Pogba for 110m is better value IMO.

I'm not sure what's unfounded re the point about Arsenal. You guys will spend but don't overspend for anyone. 30m isn't a splash anymore, we paid more for Mane. I think a club like Arsenal that is continuously in the CL, based in London and has money should be paying the kind of fees Juve just did for Higuain.

It's just the reality that United can and are willing to spend to get back to challenging. If Arsenal were willing to spend the same kind of money that United have spent on Di Maria or Pogba they'd be favorites with those players. It's easy to sit and laugh at United spending money but I'm not gonna do that because I think they're gonna finish above us and probably Arsenal too. I'm not an accountant, I'm a football fan. I only care about the figures when the context of comparative spending and success comes about. But if Liverpool were Abu Dhabi rich I couldn't give two shits if we broke the transfer record for every player we bought.

I'd agree that it would be a ****-up if they don't get it through though. But Pogba is gonna go for that kind of figure regardless - to Real, Barca, or whoever. He's already one of the best midfielders in the world and only turned 23 a few months ago. This is the kind of overspending even Ferguson did when the right player came along (Rooney, Ferdinand). You basically get a world class player for a decade. Heck, they could have him for 4 years and end up selling to Real for a profit.

Yeah, there is "sensible overspending", which Man Utd. were the masters of under Ferguson (van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.) and just throwing money at the problem, which is what their approach has been since he retired. Chelsea also had the same approach in Abramovich's early years (2003-2007).

Which is why they've won everything since then.

 

[vcs]

They haven't really achieved enough in relation to what they spent.. look at Man Utd. under Fergie, Bayern, Juventus, Barca for sensible transfer strategies with a bit of balance and foresight.

 

[Ikki]

They haven't really achieved enough in relation to what they spent.. look at Man Utd. under Fergie, Bayern, Juventus, Barca for sensible transfer strategies with a bit of balance and foresight.

What's enough?

They've won everything, only United in England have won more in the last decade or so. Chelsea are now considered one of the elite clubs in world football. Compare that to where they began. All the clubs you've mentioned have been elite clubs and did their spending in previous generations so they weren't starting from a lower point as Chelsea did. The club is potentially worth billions now. I think you can say that in every way they've been a success.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure on which planet Arsenal have spent a lot. They spend even less than Liverpool and since 2003 have spent only ~20m more than Sunderland. I mean, it's a positive point in a way that they've been consistently good for so long without spending that much. But is it really a dig to suggest that if they'd spent more they could have likely had more success? I'm pretty sure the Arsenal fans also have been on Wenger's case for this for a while.

And on United...they're now competing in a league where they are no longer the richest club and if they want to get the best players they have to offer better deals than Chelsea or City would - and that's just from the EPL.

 

[Furball]

I'm not sure what's unfounded re the point about Arsenal. You guys will spend but don't overspend for anyone. 30m isn't a splash anymore, we paid more for Mane.

Yes, in a era of rampant transfer market inflation. £36m for Mane is the equivalent 3 years ago of around £20m, we spent £42m on Ozil 3 years ago ffs.

 

[Furball]

79m for a soon to be 29 year old forward is a shitload, especially for a club from Italy that doesn't make as much as one in the EPL.

Juventus are 10th in the world's richest football clubs according to Deloitte. They can easily afford Higuain without selling Pogba.

 

[vcs]

What's enough?

They've won everything, only United in England have won more in the last decade or so. Chelsea are now considered one of the elite clubs in world football. Compare that to where they began. All the clubs you've mentioned have been elite clubs and did their spending in previous generations so they weren't starting from a lower point as Chelsea did. The club is potentially worth billions now. I think you can say that in every way they've been a success.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure on which planet Arsenal have spent a lot. They spend even less than Liverpool and since 2003 have spent only ~20m more than Sunderland. I mean, it's a positive point in a way that they've been consistently good for so long without spending that much. But is it really a dig to suggest that if they'd spent more they could have likely had more success? I'm pretty sure the Arsenal fans also have been on Wenger's case for this for a while.

And on United...they're now competing in a league where they are no longer the richest club and if they want to get the best players they have to offer better deals than Chelsea or City would - and that's just from the EPL.

I'm not defending Wenger.. he often doesn't address problem areas in the team (his current blind spot is striker, earlier he persisted with Almunia when it was blatantly obvious he was a weak link). Arsenal should definitely be spending more, and more importantly, in the right positions at the right times.

Chelsea have won plenty over the last decade, but I was specifically referring to how they stockpiled players in Mourinho's early years. So many players went there, hardly got a look-in, and became bench-warmers, sunk without a trace, or moved to some obscure club after a year or so. They sometimes bought players just to deny them the chance to play for potential rivals (Mikel?). That's not a sensible transfer policy in any sense.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, there is "sensible overspending", which Man Utd. were the masters of under Ferguson (van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.) and just throwing money at the problem, which is what their approach has been since he retired. Chelsea also had the same approach in Abramovich's early years (2003-2007).

The Ronaldo signing can hardly be considered an example of overspending. Nor can the Nistelrooy one, come to think of it.

 

[sledger]

Yes, in a era of rampant transfer market inflation. £36m for Mane is the equivalent 3 years ago of around £20m, we spent £42m on Ozil 3 years ago ffs.

Haha, how have you calculated this number exactly?

 

[cpr]

You can only really do it off guesswork. Its not like the football markets have followed inflation or the likes. I'm sure someone somewhere will have number crunched an average transfer fee, but I don't think its a million miles off to say some of the £30-40m transfers now would've been £10-15m lower a few years back. Its probably as accurate as being inaccurate can be....

 

[Furball]

Haha, how have you calculated this number exactly?

Based on previous transfers out of Southampton. I don't think Mane is any better than some of the other players they've sold recently, what's changed is the transfer market going full ****** because of insane TV deals.