Deadline Day: Bring Out The Transfer Gimp!

Oat23

cson wrote: »

Speaking of mad transfer fees..



Am I the only one who thinks thats an outrageous sum for a player of Steven Fletchers calibre? :eek:

He's British. Prices are always inflated.

Knex*

Transfermarket have it down as almost 40m pounds.

That link also shows their total expenditure for the summer, 127.6m pounds. Absolutely mental that they can spend that much with their setup.

Financial Fair Play rules aren't gonna be worth shit I'm afraid.

Paully D

cson wrote: »

Speaking of mad transfer fees..

Am I the only one who thinks thats an outrageous sum for a player of Steven Fletchers calibre? :eek:

The vast majority of people said the same when we spent up to £16m on Bent, yet Fletcher has a better goals per minutes record playing in far worse teams.

He's a bit overpriced IMO but it's the way the markets have gone. When you have middle of the road teams such as us and teams like Wolves making billions off TV deals it's only going to end up increasing fees. Wolves paid £7.5m for him, have him under contract for another 3 years (with the option of a 4th) and finanically are under no pressure to sell. They hold all the cards. If we want him we have to pay what the ask.

At the end of the day we're at a crossroads where we need to buy players that fit into a system and not individual talent. Of course we could probably buy a very exciting individual player from abroad for that sort of money, but with Fletcher we know what we're going to get. He fits perfectly into O'Neill's system and will score 12-15 goals a season for us whilst helping the rest of the team to do better. He's also one of the most clinical strikers in the league and will get far more opportunities to score with us than he ever did at Wolves or Burnley.

At the end of the day he may be a bit overpriced but will be a very good signing for us. I suspect if he was called Fletcherinho and people studied his statistics a bit more it wouldn't be seen as such a high price to pay for him.

Deank

Knex. wrote: »

Transfermarket have it down as almost 40m pounds.

That link also shows their total expenditure for the summer, 127.6m pounds. Absolutely mental that they can spend that much with their setup.

Financial Fair Play rules aren't gonna be worth shit I'm afraid.

FFP doesn't come into play with French clubs, Platini has seen to that, he wants his countrymen to win a CL Final before he steps down from his UEFA position:rolleyes::eek:

Blatter

If Lucas Moura is worth €43m then how much is Neymar worth?

Red Crow

Blatter wrote: »

If Lucas Moura is worth €43m then how much is Neymar worth?

Neymar will depend on how much he wants to join Real Madrid/Barcelona or a Man City/PSG. If he has his 'heart' set to wear the white of Real Madrid he could go for €40 Million if it's a PSG or a Man City expect a bidding war and he'll go for more than Kaka'

Red Crow

Why did Verratti join PSG? Is he be loaned back out? I know it's €2Million a year for him but it's very disappointing because he's likely to rot with the team their building.

The Qatar Investment Authority have spent €264 Million so far at PSG. Only a drop in comparison to Sheikh Mansour and his €540 Million spent with Man City. That's excluding Man City's wage bill of €220 Million per season! According to to some he's spent nearly €1.25 Billion!

That's crazy money.

Degag

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Blackburn bid 6million for Jordan Rhodes of Huddersfield. 40goals in 45 games last season.

Just the player they need, BUT, if they had signed the likes of him, Leon Best, Nuno Gomes, Danny Murphy, Dickson Etuhu etc LAST year, maybe we wouldnt have been fackin relegated!!

Seems Venkys finally realised we need to buy players.

Instead of selling all our centre backs - Jones, Nelsen and Samba one after the other!

Totally agree. Same seemed to happen with West Ham. Failed to spend any money the season they were relegated, yet seem willing to spend 17-19 milion on Andy Caroll this season after a year on loan - and i'm fairly sure they're the same owners but of course could be told otherwise.

Kirby

Paully D wrote: »

The vast majority of people said the same when we spent up to £16m on Bent, yet Fletcher has a better goals per minutes record playing in far worse teams.

He's a bit overpriced IMO but it's the way the markets have gone. When you have middle of the road teams such as us and teams like Wolves making billions off TV deals it's only going to end up increasing fees. Wolves paid £7.5m for him, have him under contract for another 3 years (with the option of a 4th) and finanically are under no pressure to sell. They hold all the cards. If we want him we have to pay what the ask.

At the end of the day we're at a crossroads where we need to buy players that fit into a system and not individual talent. Of course we could probably buy a very exciting individual player from abroad for that sort of money, but with Fletcher we know what we're going to get. He fits perfectly into O'Neill's system and will score 12-15 goals a season for us whilst helping the rest of the team to do better. He's also one of the most clinical strikers in the league and will get far more opportunities to score with us than he ever did at Wolves or Burnley.

At the end of the day he may be a bit overpriced but will be a very good signing for us. I suspect if he was called Fletcherinho and people studied his statistics a bit more it wouldn't be seen as such a high price to pay for him.

Totally agree with this. People just think "LOL wolves player for 12 million" and don't know anything about him. He isn't quick but he is the best header in the league and is as clinical as they come. Wolves didn't create alot of chances the last two seasons so he had to take any that came his way, which he did very well.

ben.schlomo

cson wrote: »

Speaking of mad transfer fees..



Am I the only one who thinks thats an outrageous sum for a player of Steven Fletchers calibre? :eek:

Not outrageous by any means, anytime i saw him play last season he was very good for Wolves, leads the line brilliantly, works hard, good finisher, excellent header of the ball, scored 12goals for a team with one of the worst midfields in PL history, maybe €8-€10m would be right but not much difference if thats the fee, good business by Sunderland imo.

Leiva

31st of August 2004
Alex Ferguson pays £25.6 million for 18 year old Wayne Rooney


9 August 2012 - after missing out on signing Lucas Moura...

Alex Ferguson: "I find it quite amazing that a club can pay 45million euros for a 19-year-old boy"
"When somebody's paying £45million for a 19-year-old boy you have to say the game's gone mad.

LOL

Red Crow

Leiva wrote: »

31st of August 2004
Alex Ferguson pays £25.6 million for 18 year old Wayne Rooney


9 August 2012 - after missing out on signing Lucas Moura...

Alex Ferguson: "I find it quite amazing that a club can pay 45million euros for a 19-year-old boy"
"When somebody's paying £45million for a 19-year-old boy you have to say the game's gone mad.

LOL

Rooney had played 67 times for Everton moving to a PL team. Lucas has never played outside Brazil.

Rooney has turned out to be an awesome piece of business. There is no comparison really tbh.

Seaneh

It's "only" 10 million more than Rooney...

Blatter

Leiva wrote: »

31st of August 2004
Alex Ferguson pays £25.6 million for 18 year old Wayne Rooney


9 August 2012 - after missing out on signing Lucas Moura...


LOL

In fairness Rooney at that time was way more proven than what Lucas Moura is now.

He was a seasoned PL player and had just stood out at Euro 2004. He had the ability to improve the team immediately whereas Lucas is still mostly potential. I wouldn't say the two transfers have a whole lot in common at all.

FutureGuy

Leiva wrote: »

31st of August 2004
Alex Ferguson pays £25.6 million for 18 year old Wayne Rooney


9 August 2012 - after missing out on signing Lucas Moura...


LOL

Rediculous comparison, and I think you probably know that deep down. Rooney was proven in the Premier League, up until a few weeks ago, no one heard of Moura. Then suddenly people became experts on him over a cup of tea and a few youtube vids. We could see Rooney's potential every week for Everton.

It's evident that United came close to paying a similar fee for Moura but 45 million is rediculously over priced for someone who isn't even a starter in the Olympic team. He could go on to be a star, but he could also completely fail to adapt to European football.

45 million euro? No thanks!

FutureGuy

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Not outrageous by any means, anytime i saw him play last season he was very good for Wolves, leads the line brilliantly, works hard, good finisher, excellent header of the ball, scored 12goals for a team with one of the worst midfields in PL history, maybe €8-€10m would be right but not much difference if thats the fee, good business by Sunderland imo.

12 is a fair price for Fletcher imo.

Leiva

Blatter wrote: »

In fairness Rooney at that time was way more proven than what Lucas Moura is now.

He was a seasoned PL player and had just stood out at Euro 2004. He had the ability to improve the team immediately whereas Lucas is still mostly potential. I wouldn't say the two transfers have a whole lot in common at all.

Yes Rooney had shown more that Moura had at a similar age but he was far from a seasoned PL player.

Was Ferguson's point about big money for unproven talent, or just a troll about the big spending/ distorted transfer market in the game at present?
Cause going by his second comment it seems he wasn't remarking about over paying for unproven talent - he was having a dig at PSG's spending power :

To tell everyone that PSG are here they've signed Thiago Silva and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. They must have spent about £150million in the last month."The only deterrent to that is UEFA. In the conditions of European football, you don't qualify for Europe by winning the league or coming second - you only get in by invitation.

Thats just laughable right there !

He wasn't complaining when he sold Ronaldo for €93.9 million .

I am just going to put this down and add it to the hypocrite list of Ferguson's quotes .


gone way off topic

missingtime

Its all relative guys.

ThunbergsAreGo

FutureGuy wrote: »

Rediculous comparison, and I think you probably know that deep down. Rooney was proven in the Premier League, up until a few weeks ago, no one heard of Moura. Then suddenly people became experts on him over a cup of tea and a few youtube vids. We could see Rooney's potential every week for Everton.

It's evident that United came close to paying a similar fee for Moura but 45 million is rediculously over priced for someone who isn't even a starter in the Olympic team. He could go on to be a star, but he could also completely fail to adapt to European football.

45 million euro? No thanks!

Thats not true, many people had heard of Moura and he has been capped by Brazil 15 times?

Its a gamble worth taking for PSG who have more money than they need. As a French team, if he becomes a world star the chances of him coming to them would be low enough, this way, he is theirs. The premium they have paid is worth this. Also with the Brazilian infleucne at PSG he will probably be more likely to adapt

Jax Teller

Rooney wasn't given 250 grand a week wages at 18 either . That's worth considering too .

ThunbergsAreGo

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

Rooney wasn't given 250 grand a week wages at 18 either . That's worth considering too .

Not debating that but for PSG, they dont really care.

Plus i think tax in France is ridiculous and thus will increase the wage required to be paid to footballers
Been a slow summer all round really

FutureGuy

naughtb4 wrote: »

Thats not true, many people had heard of Moura and he has been capped by Brazil 15 times?

naughtb4 wrote: »

Its a gamble worth taking for PSG who have more money than they need. As a French team, if he becomes a world star the chances of him coming to them would be low enough, this way, he is theirs. The premium they have paid is worth this. Also with the Brazilian infleucne at PSG he will probably be more likely to adapt

Ah sure if you are like City, Chelsea or PSG, it's not really a gamble though. Oil money is practically unlimited to all of them...sure if it doesn't work out they can sell him on for a loss, no biggie, it's only a few million, we have billions more where that came from!

For other clubs who have built their coffers over the years through *gasp* actual success, then it is a massive massive gamble. Sure look at Liverpool, they blew 35m million of an absolutely woeful player in Andy Carroll and that will hurt their coffers for a few years. Look at the number of transfers United have made in recent years that didn't work out...loads! 45 million is just too much unless your club wipes their arse with oil money.

Sad facts, but facts of modern football none-the-less.

Pepe LeFrits

Seaneh wrote: »

It's "only" 10 million more than Rooney...

The exchange rate at the time translated to almost €38m, more than €40m taking inflation into account.

It's a fair comparison, he's talking in general terms about it being crazy for anyone that age as opposed to just Moura specifically, and he's broken plenty of transfer records himself. These sorts of fees always look crazy to those who can't afford them themselves.

But then, football managers are always biased in these matters and they've no real duty to accuracy or consistency either. Their only responsibility is to be consistent in doing the best by their club. 'Ferguson is a hypocrite?! HERE'S THE PROOF!'? Meh, I just see Ferguson looking to create a positive narrative for United.

Oat23

FutureGuy wrote: »

up until a few weeks ago, no one heard of Moura. Then suddenly people became experts on him over a cup of tea and a few youtube vids.

Seriously? He has over a dozen caps for the NT and he scored a hattrick in the U-20 championships last year, a tournament lots of people watched because Neymar was playing. Just because you didn't hear about him doesn't mean nobody knows him! He's been one of the biggest names in Brazil for a while now.

Dempsey

naughtb4 wrote: »

Not debating that but for PSG, they dont really care.

Plus i think tax in France is ridiculous and thus will increase the wage required to be paid to footballers
Been a slow summer all round really

It cant be much more than the 50% paid in England.

Have to LOL at the criticism of Moura joining PSG over United. Ferguson criticising the price paid for a 19 y/o with international experience when he paid over the odds for a 16 year old with more to prove at the time than Moura does now.

Snakeblood

Dempsey wrote: »

It cant be much more than the 50% paid in England.

Have to LOL at the criticism of Moura joining PSG over United. Ferguson criticising the price paid for a 19 y/o with international experience when he paid over the odds for a 16 year old with more to prove at the time than Moura does now.

The planned tax rate for top earners is 75% in France. Dunno if it'll get through, but that's Hollandes big idea.

Red Crow

Dempsey wrote: »

It cant be much more than the 50% paid in England.

Have to LOL at the criticism of Moura joining PSG over United. Ferguson criticising the price paid for a 19 y/o with international experience when he paid over the odds for a 16 year old with more to prove at the time than Moura does now.

If you insist on spouting rubbish then at least make it accurate. Wayne Rooney played 67 times for Everton in the Premier League and was 18 years old when he was signed after Euro 2004 where he scored four goals and had a great tournament until he got injured against Portugal and England lost on penalties. Wayne Rooney was off the chart in terms of development in comparison to Lucas Moura who would not come close in comparison of ability or talent at the same age. Wayne Rooney was widely renowned and has proven to be a very special player. Lucas Moura is a great talent but he isn't Wayne Rooney and is quite frankly nowhere near him in terms of development as Wayne Rooney was at 18.

Wayne Rooney was as proven as he was going to be at 18 in the Premier League. Lucas Moura isn't and is moving from the Brazilian League to the French League. There is no comparison between the two bar their age.

Dempsey

Eli Manning wrote: »

If you insist on spouting rubbish then at least make it accurate. Wayne Rooney played 67 times for Everton in the Premier League and was 18 years old when he was signed after Euro 2004 where he scored four goals and had a great tournament until he got injured against Portugal and England lost on penalties. Wayne Rooney was off the chart in terms of development in comparison to Lucas Moura who would not come close in comparison of ability or talent at the same age. Wayne Rooney was widely renowned and has proven to be a very special player. Lucas Moura is a great talent but he isn't Wayne Rooney and is quite frankly nowhere near him in terms of development as Wayne Rooney was at 18.

Wayne Rooney was as proven as he was going to be at 18 in the Premier League. Lucas Moura isn't and is moving from the Brazilian League to the French League. There is no comparison between the two bar their age.

Rooney had alot to prove at 18 with that price tag, to say otherwise is nonsense. Ferguson was talking absolute rubbish when slating the price PSG payed for Moura considering he broke records to sign Rooney. Sour grapes from someone that has realised that there is another club on the scene that will gazump him in the market.

bren2001

Dempsey wrote: »

Rooney had alot to prove at 18 with that price tag, to say otherwise is nonsense. Ferguson was talking absolute rubbish when slating the price PSG payed for Moura considering he broke records to sign Rooney. Sour grapes from someone that has realised that there is another club on the scene that will gazump him in the market.

Of course Rooney has a lot to prove, he was still extremely young. What sets him aside from Moura is that he has proven a lot already IN the league that he will be playing in. Moura has proven himself in Brasil and on an international stage (not to the same level as Rooney had imo). Moura is now moving from his home country and flying half way across the world to prove himself in an entirely different culture and style of football. Rooney had to move about 100 km up the road.

Moura faces more challenges than Rooney and subsequently is much higher risk. For that reason I agree with SAF, it is crasy money to be spending on someone so young. There was more gaurantees with Rooney.

I should also state I am a United fan...

Red Crow

Dempsey wrote: »

Rooney had alot to prove at 18 with that price tag, to say otherwise is nonsense. Ferguson was talking absolute rubbish when slating the price PSG payed for Moura considering he broke records to sign Rooney. Sour grapes from someone that has realised that there is another club on the scene that will gazump him in the market.

Chelsea have blown United out of the water approaching a decade now. Paying €43 Million is stupid for Lucas Moura. Also I never said Rooney had nothing to prove so I don't know where you're getting that from. I wouldn't say it's sour grapes; it's more along the lines of pointing out the obvious.

mike65

Have Manchester Utd signed anyone this summer? (not being smart, just don't know)

Mars Bar

mike65 wrote: »

Have Manchester Utd signed anyone this summer? (not being smart, just don't know)

Shinji Kagawa and Nick Powell

mike65

Shinji Kagawa, of course. Silly me.

fergiesfolly

Paying 43 million is crazy if you havn't got it. But PSG have and they've chosen to pay it. How many premiership clubs could have afforded to pay the millions United did for Nani, Anderson or Bebe(friggin Bebe). Very few. Until uefa properly impose the FFP or until United loosen the purse strings, we're going to see a lot of prospective signings slip through our fingers

Leiva

McGeady to Sunderland . Rejoining MON maybe .

Paully D

Martin O'Neill is after Aiden McGeady. McGeady is pushing Spartak Moscow to allow him to move to Sunderland:

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/football/transfer-talk-mcgeady-pushes-for-sunderland-move

Aiden McGeady is pushing Spartak Moscow to allow him to move to the English Premier League with Sunderland.

The Republic of Ireland winger has made no secret of his ambition to play at the top level of the English game, with the opportunity to work again with Martin O'Neill a particular attraction.

O'Neill introduced the then-teenage McGeady to first-team football at Celtic in 2004 and is planning to combine him with Steven Fletcher in his new Sunderland attack should both transfers be pushed through.

Earlier this week, Fletcher requested that relegated Wolverhampton Wanderers accept the Sunderland's £12 million (Dh68.4m) offer for his services.

Sunderland had also been considering an approach to Manchester City for John Guidetti following the young centre forward's prolific season on loan at Feyenoord. Guidetti, however, has yet to fully recover from a virus-induced leg paralysis that prevented him from representing Sweden at Euro 2012 and the bid has been halted.

McGeady, 26, joined Spartak in 2010 for a fee of just less than £10m. Though an influential figure in the Moscow club's Champions League qualification, he suffered public criticism from his coach and was left out of the side for several games last March.

Asked about his future at Spartak ahead of the European Championship, McGeady said: "I had a few issues, but I had a great end to the season. So I am happy there just now. I still have ambitions to play in England or wherever. I wouldn't want to stay there past my contract."

Spartak are reluctant to sell the Glaswegian as they work on defensive reinforcements ahead of the Champions League play-off round. A €12m (Dh54m) offer for Tunisia centre back Aymen Abdennour has been rejected by Toulouse.

Would be a canny signing for us and would allow us to play with two wingers who can interchange during a game, something which O'Neill wants in the system he is trying to develop with us. Wouldn't surprise me to see Sessegnon on his way if we do get deals for McGeady (or a similar winger) and Fletcher done though.

Oat23

I think he should stay in Russia. He is playing well and is well suited to the style of play there.

While he was at Celtic, I used to think if he ever moved to England it would be a bad decision.

JPA

MON wants McGeady, as predictable a link as there is!
He was linked constantly to Villa under MON.

Dempsey

Oatesy23 wrote: »

I think he should stay in Russia. He is playing well and is well suited to the style of play there.

While he was at Celtic, I used to think if he ever moved to England it would be a bad decision.

McGeady has already told Spartak that he will not be renewing his contract with them so this might be the best window to cash in on him.

MON will hopefully condition him mentally to get down the wing and cross the ball and knock that frustrating habit of dwelling on the ball until he's doubled up/everyone is well marked in the box.

Paully D

Would be great from an Irish point of view too to have what is likely to be our two first choice wingers of the future playing on either side for the same club.

Sgt Pepper 64

Hulk pretty much said his goodbyes to Porto fans and the club after saying recently:"I am very gratefull for Porto for having betted on me back when I was playing in Japan, if it wasn't for the club I wouldn't be here where I am. I want to say thanks to everyone at Porto". The most likely deal will be one with Zenit, after their manager spoke to the press stating they were interested in Hulk, now the portuguese press reports that Maxim Mitrofanov, Zenit's General Director is in Porto negotiating Hulk for a deal worth 50M euros+ Bruno Alves."

Gbear

****in hell... Porto do it again. They must be the best run club in football.

They must've made the bones of €1bn in profit from transfers over the past 10 years.

cson

Gbear wrote: »

****in hell... Porto do it again. They must be the best run club in football.

They must've made the bones of €1bn in profit from transfers over the past 10 years.

+1 to that.

Quick glance at Wiki and the fees announced > €10m for the last 3yrs plus three other high profilers off the top of my head [Anderson, Bosingwa and Deco] amount to the below;

Gonzalez €18m
Lopez €24m
Cissoko €15m
Anderson €30m
Deco €15m
Bosingwa €20m
Falcao €40m
Alves €22m
Meireles €13m

Just shy of €200m.

Phenomenal.

MD1990

cson wrote: »

+1 to that.

Quick glance at Wiki and the fees announced > €10m for the last 3yrs plus three other high profilers off the top of my head [Anderson, Bosingwa and Deco] amount to the below;

Gonzalez €18m
Lopez €24m
Cissoko €15m
Anderson €30m
Deco €15m
Bosingwa €20m
Falcao €40m
Alves €22m
Meireles €13m

Just shy of €200m.

Phenomenal.

Pepe 30m
Quaresma 18.6m

James Rodrigues will probably be next to be sold in a few years

mufcboy1999

I didn't think united payed 30 mill for Anderson ? Surely that's wrong and was probably the combined price of both him and nani who were bought at the same time from Porto and Lisbon.

SteelyDanJalapeno

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

I didn't think united payed 30 mill for Anderson ? Surely that's wrong and was probably the combined price of both him and nani who were bought at the same time from Porto and Lisbon.

Anderson was 20m Sterling,

30m euro at that exchange rate of the time.

kryogen

Ando was 18msterling, dont ask me for a link, on the phone!!

was about 25meuro at the time iirc

could have been such a good deal rated as the best in his position of his age

mufcboy1999

Wow I honestly taught he cost in and around 10 mill and the price was combined with nani.

Ones things for sure he'd want to start living up to his price tag because he's been shocking at united. Fair enough with the injuries but when he does play he's nothing amazing at all, defeintly not 25ms worth anyway.

Jax Teller

Scott Sinclair linked with a move to Man City this morning .

MUSEIST

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

Scott Sinclair linked with a move to Man City this morning .

Is that a joke, weirdest rumour I've heard in a while.