Summer transfer thread 17/18 season (NEYMAR TALK IN OTHER THREAD)

GavRedKing

Bonucci to AC Milan for 40m is being reported in Italy by a few reporters.

Lukker-

Doesn't get on with Allegri at all, but his wife wants to stay in Italy and he grew up in Milan. Solid signing if it happens, weakens Juve a lot too.

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

Doesn't get on with Allegri at all, but his wife wants to stay in Italy and he grew up in Milan. Solid signing if it happens, weakens Juve a lot too.

Juve are meant to be after De Sciglio too.

I cant see a swap deal, they never happen, but if De Sciglio is at AC Milan next year, I think Juve will be after him.

GavRedKing

Telegraph saying Spurs have accepted 50m from City for Walker.

Osmosis Jones

Spurs are barely going to feel it with Trippier already around to fill Walker's boots.

Quazzie

Every time I hear of Walker being mentioned with figures like that I have to double check because I always think I must be mistaken about who it actually is. Isn't worth anywhere near that imo. Must be the English Tax

Giggsy11

GavRedKing wrote: »

Telegraph saying Spurs have accepted 50m from City for Walker.

50 Million for Walker, 50 Million for Mendy (apparently), 50 Million for Stones but somehow no one calls Pep as Checkbook manager.

Their defense along with GK cost around 210-220 Million pounds.

Harry Palmr

Worth? He's worth it for City as they have the money and they need to keep the home grown quota filled.

Presumably Kyle Walker Peters will be happy!

pjohnson

Quazzie wrote: »

Every time I hear of Walker being mentioned with figures like that I have to double check because I always think I must be mistaken about who it actually is. Isn't worth anywhere near that imo. Must be the English Tax

I'd say the fact its well known City have one left back, no right backs and just got rejected by Dani Alves that contribute aswell. City are desperate. I thought Spurs would demand more but as mentioned Trippier actually dislodged him from the side last year.

Giggsy11

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Worth? He's worth it for City as they have the money and they need to keep the home grown quota filled.

Presumably Kyle Walker Peters will be happy!

Spurs surely have some cloning machine. There is some young player who looks like Bale and now they have young player who has same name too.

Bounty Hunter

It's him being English, it being city, it being one premier league cl team to another and he will suit city so the fee does not shock me even though he isn't what you'd normally consider a 50m player.

If Spurs re-invest elsewhere (and keep the rest of their starters) they will be doing well given how trippier has preformed

pjohnson

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Worth? He's worth it for City as they have the money and they need to keep the home grown quota filled.

Presumably Kyle Walker Peters will be happy!

Lol. I just picture Levy sending KWP for the medical. "Oh you meant Kyle Walker?" Sorry I misunderstood, that'll be 70m in that case.

suffering golfer

Giggsy11 wrote: »

50 Million for Walker, 50 Million for Mendy (apparently), 50 Million for Stones but somehow no one calls Pep as Checkbook manager.

Their defense along with GK cost around 210-220 Million pounds.

So what?

That's a bit rich coming from a supporter, to be giving out about fees when when his club has paid the two highest fees in the the last year on Pogba and Lukaku.

Pot meet kettle...

Jayop

suffering golfer wrote: »

So what?

That's a bit rich coming from a supporter, to be giving out about fees when when his club has paid the two highest fees in the the last year on Pogba and Lukaku.

Pot meet kettle...

The point he's making isn't that Jose or United haven't spent big, it's that Pep spends equally or more and doesn't get the same abuse for being a checkbook manager.

Not a pot and kettle situation at all. More like the pot looking at the kettle and wondering why he's not getting the same tarnish.

suffering golfer

Jayop wrote: »

The point he's making isn't that Jose or United haven't spent big, it's that Pep spends equally or more and doesn't get the same abuse for being a checkbook manager.

Not a pot and kettle situation at all. More like the pot looking at the kettle and wondering why he's not getting the same tarnish.

Whatever about Pep, Man City get dog abuse every year for spending money. Just think it a bit rich for a Man Utd fan to be doing that now.

Jayop

suffering golfer wrote: »

Whatever about Pep, Man City get dog abuse every year for spending money. Just think it a bit rich for a Man Utd fan to be doing that now.

Again, if you actually read what he said, he didn't complain about them spending at all. he complained that Jose is called a checkbook manager while Pep isn't.

It's not difficult.

United and City have spend equally outrageous amounts in recent years. I really don't care what either spend and I certainly don't think the fans of either club are in a position to complain about the others ludicrous spending. The money is there, the teams need improving, the best players and Stones cost a fortune so let them off.

ERG89

Jayop wrote:

Again, if you actually read what he said, he didn't complain about them spending at all. he complained that Jose is called a checkbook manager while Pep isn't.

They all are though. Few managers in the league don't splash cash. I actually think it's noticeable how good the chemistry was at Spurs last season as they tend not to buy 2 or 3 new starters every year like others do. Most managers tend in the league tend to buy new instead of trying to develop too. I think the fascination with buying comes from the fact most Managers in the PL are well paid to do little so they need to try a quick fix on the team rather than work on the training ground.

suffering golfer

Jayop wrote: »

Again, if you actually read what he said, he didn't complain about them spending at all. he complained that Jose is called a checkbook manager while Pep isn't.

It's not difficult.

United and City have spend equally outrageous amounts in recent years. I really don't care what either spend and I certainly don't think the fans of either club are in a position to complain about the others ludicrous spending. The money is there, the teams need improving, the best players and Stones cost a fortune so let them off.

Maybe that's because Pep is popular and Jose isn't? Or maybe because Pep has a stronger reputation for developing players over Jose?

Anyway getting sidetracked a little. There is no question that Man City have brought horrifically and overpaid defense in the back. May be too much money but City badly needed a full back and home grown is a major plus as City is struggling with that aspect.

TitianGerm

suffering golfer wrote: »

Or maybe because Pep has a stronger reputation for developing players over Jose?

What young players has Pep developed? I can't really think of many?

POKERKING

Jayop wrote: »

suffering golfer wrote: »

Whatever about Pep, Man City get dog abuse every year for spending money. Just think it a bit rich for a Man Utd fan to be doing that now.

Again, if you actually read what he said, he didn't complain about them spending at all. he complained that Jose is called a checkbook manager while Pep isn't.

It's not difficult.

United and City have spend equally outrageous amounts in recent years. I really don't care what either spend and I certainly don't think the fans of either club are in a position to complain about the others ludicrous spending. The money is there, the teams need improving, the best players and Stones cost a fortune so let them off.

City fans have been labelled with this for yeaes, me personally from utd fans, if i give it back its because i have been getting it for years. "City ruining football" now its ok for teams to "ruin" football.

Walker a great signing, best available right back and its done. I dont care about money.

Same with utd, they got lukaku the best available striker and anything after that is irrelevant.

suffering golfer

emmetkenny wrote: »

What young players has Pep developed? I can't really think of many?

Ask AIG or read his posts. I am sure he may have mentioned a couple.

rob316

So Man City just paid £50m for Spurs 2nd choice RB?

Furthermore he will be horribly exposed without the protection of 2 excellent CB at spurs and compact midfield in front of him.

Jayop

POKERKING wrote: »

City fans have been labelled with this for yeaes, me personally from utd fans, if i give it back its because i have been getting it for years. "City ruining football" now its ok for teams to "ruin" football.

Walker a great signing, best available right back and its done. I dont care about money.

Same with utd, they got lukaku the best available striker and anything after that is irrelevant.

Not sure he's a great signing TBH but if he's the best available then you have to pay up. Such is life.

suffering golfer wrote: »

Ask AIG or read his posts. I am sure he may have mentioned a couple.

Jesus, I'm sure no-one wants to do that!

TitianGerm

suffering golfer wrote: »

Ask AIG or read his posts. I am sure he may have mentioned a couple.

POKERKING

rob316 wrote: »

So Man City just paid £50m for Spurs 2nd choice RB?

Furthermore he will be horribly exposed without the protection of 2 excellent CB at spurs and compact midfield in front of him.

Honestly i dont say this as in a city fan but i think he was only second choice at the end when they knew he was off. He was pfa team of year right back.

TitianGerm

POKERKING wrote: »

Honestly i dont say this as in a city fan but i think he was only second choice at the end when they knew he was off. He was pfa team of year right back.

I think Coleman would have gotten the RB spot only for the bad injury and missing quite a bit of the season.

Subcomandante Marcos

GavRedKing wrote: »

Bonucci to AC Milan for 40m is being reported in Italy by a few reporters.

La Stampa, which is owned by the family who own Juventus, reporting that a deal will be announced tonight for about €40 million and the player getting €6-7 million per season. De Sciglio not included in the transfer but expected to go the opposite direction in a separate deal.

yabadabado

Walker is probably the best available home grown RB and a decent signing.City are badly stuck so have to pay way over the odds. Spurs were obviously going to screw them on the fee.

Jayop

yabadabado wrote: »

Walker is probably the best available home grown RB and a decent signing.City are badly stuck so have to pay way over the odds. Spurs were obviously going to screw them on the fee.

But 50m like. For a right back. I thought what we paid for Shaw was pretty nuts.

It's like the housing boom in mid 2000's!

Hopefully there's a dramatic correction.

yabadabado

Jayop wrote: »

But 50m like. For a right back. I thought what we paid for Shaw was pretty nuts.

Don't get me wrong it's madness but if he's the player they wanted they are gonna be made pay way over the odds for him.Alves joining PSG probably really ****ed them over.
Shaws fee looks like good business now :eek:

Burial.

Luke Shaw has done sweet f*ck all at United tbh. Bargain my arse.

Jayop

yabadabado wrote: »

Don't get me wrong it's madness but if he's the player they wanted they are gonna be made pay way over the odds for him.Alves joining PSG probably really ****ed them over.
Shaws fee looks like good business now :eek:

Well......

Time will tell about that one. Hopefully to God he gets back in the team at the start of the league and if he does and he performs then yeah the 28/30m whatever it was will feel like a bloody bargain at this rate.

What's the most expensive full back transfer in history? Surely this one is the biggest into the Prem and inter Prem transfer.

Burial.

"good business" in comparison to the supposed Walker fee yeah? Which would hint at a bargain compared to it...but he's just been overweight or injured or both for the large part of his time there. Good business, I think not.

Edit: Deleted post? ah here

yabadabado

Walker will be the most expensive defender in history and I believe in the top 10 most expensive transfers if the 50m fee is accurate.

Agent Coulson

£50m for Walker and they want £60m off utd for Dier.


Spurs laughing all the way to the bank.

Jayop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers

If that list is correct then Stones and Luiz are the only two defenders to make a move for anything like that kind of money. From a quick scan of the list of top 50 players there's not a single full back that I noticed.

Interestingly there's been 16 PL clubs who've been the buyers in that top 50.

United 7
City 6 (soon to be 7 with Walker)
Chelsea 2 (shocked at that)
Liverpool 3 (soon to be 2)
Arsenal 2

Some right whoppers from the PL clubs. Veron and DiMaria at United, Stones for City, Benteke and Carroll for Liverpool, Torres and Shevchenko at Chelsea. Lot's of them great players but stunk the place out after such massive transfers.

Jayop

Burial. wrote: »

"good business" in comparison to the supposed Walker fee yeah? Which would hint at a bargain compared to it...but he's just been overweight or injured or both for the large part of his time there. Good business, I think not.

Edit: Deleted post? ah here

17 injuries or illnesses so far at United. He's had a shocker so far. Like I said, if he does manage to get fit he's got massive potential and it's got to the stage when Shaw money is for taking a punt on someone. Crazy.

Giggsy11

suffering golfer wrote: »

So what?

That's a bit rich coming from a supporter, to be giving out about fees when when his club has paid the two highest fees in the the last year on Pogba and Lukaku.

Pot meet kettle...

suffering golfer wrote: »

Whatever about Pep, Man City get dog abuse every year for spending money. Just think it a bit rich for a Man Utd fan to be doing that now.

Read the post before starting bitching about it. I don't give a damn what clubs spend.

suffering golfer wrote: »

Maybe that's because Pep is popular and Jose isn't? Or maybe because Pep has a stronger reputation for developing players over Jose?

Anyway getting sidetracked a little. There is no question that Man City have brought horrifically and overpaid defense in the back. May be too much money but City badly needed a full back and home grown is a major plus as City is struggling with that aspect.

One more myth.

Jayop

The fact he has a reputation for developing players isn't a myth. The myth is imo that he's developed them.

Lukker-

Jayop wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers

If that list is correct then Stones and Luiz are the only two defenders to make a move for anything like that kind of money. From a quick scan of the list of top 50 players there's not a single full back that I noticed.

Interestingly there's been 16 PL clubs who've been the buyers in that top 50.

United 7
City 6 (soon to be 7 with Walker)
Chelsea 2 (shocked at that)
Liverpool 3 (soon to be 2)
Arsenal 2


Some right whoppers from the PL clubs. Veron and DiMaria at United, Stones for City, Benteke and Carroll for Liverpool, Torres and Shevchenko at Chelsea. Lot's of them great players but stunk the place out after such massive transfers.

Chelsea have only spent over £37m once and that was Torres. The Torres signing made the club re-evaluate big money signings and their approach. Chelsea have had a super effective policy since than, even including bad calls such as KdB and Lukaku. (which were more down to manager wants rather than club policy)

the whole year inn

Jayop wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers

If that list is correct then Stones and Luiz are the only two defenders to make a move for anything like that kind of money. From a quick scan of the list of top 50 players there's not a single full back that I noticed.

Interestingly there's been 16 PL clubs who've been the buyers in that top 50.

United 7
City 6 (soon to be 7 with Walker)
Chelsea 2 (shocked at that)
Liverpool 3 (soon to be 2)
Arsenal 2

Some right whoppers from the PL clubs. Veron and DiMaria at United, Stones for City, Benteke and Carroll for Liverpool, Torres and Shevchenko at Chelsea. Lot's of them great players but stunk the place out after such massive transfers.

Why is Stones in that list he's only one season at City.

yabadabado

Chelsea do seem to have made some very good transfers in the last few seasons.Also got good fees when selling players on.

Agent Coulson

Did Fergie develop the class of 92 or did he luck into a generation of great young players?


The same question can be asked about Pep with his Barca team.

Giggsy11

Lukker- wrote: »

Chelsea have only spent over £37m once and that was Torres. The Torres signing made the club re-evaluate big money signings and their approach. Chelsea have had a super effective policy since than, even including bad calls such as KdB and Lukaku. (which were more down to manager wants rather than club policy)

It has nothing to do with policy, it's just that big signings were failed attempts. Few seasons back Chelsea wanted Pogba, then this season were ready to pay more than 50 Million for Sandro, last season were ready to pay big money for Napoli CB and Nainggolan. It's just that all of these were failed attempts, not to forget matching bid for Lukaku.

Jayop

Lukker- wrote: »

Chelsea have only spent over £37m once and that was Torres. The Torres signing made the club re-evaluate big money signings and their approach. Chelsea have had a super effective policy since than, even including bad calls such as KdB and Lukaku. (which were more down to manager wants rather than club policy)

Chelsea have been beyond cute in their dealings of late. They were throwing around money like it was going out of fashion 15 odd years ago, but even then it was rarely insane money, just more a case of buying lots of middle money type players.

I'm sure they would happily go well over that Torres money this summer though if the right player is available to them.

the whole year inn wrote: »

Why is Stones in that list he's only one season at City.

Because he's never in a month of Sundays going to be a 50m center half. It was crazy money. If it was a list of players who went for sensible money then he wouldn't be included. Di Maria was only at United for one season too.

Jayop

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Did Fergie develop the class of 92 or did he luck into a generation of great young players?


The same question can be asked about Pep with his Barca team.

Absolutely no comparison. Fergie blooded every single one of those players and trusted them to the point of selling a load of the first team stars after winning the league. Most of the Barca players that would have come through the Masia had already made their debuts before Pep was in charge.

BullBlackNova

emmetkenny wrote: »

What young players has Pep developed? I can't really think of many?

Well, he had a pretty successful spell as manager of Barca B. He brought Busquets and Pedro straight up to the first team with him and also gave quite a few players their first chances in the team.

Pique was signed having played fewer than 50 first team games in his career, the bulk coming at Zaragoza a season previously so not exactly the finished article.

Joshua Kimmich joined Bayern having never played top flight football. Started as a DM and is now a regular right back, pretty sure that counts as development.

Was Thiago Alcantara another? Came through under Pep at Barca and linked up with him at Bayern and progressed.

rob316 wrote: »

So Man City just paid £50m for Spurs 2nd choice RB?

Furthermore he will be horribly exposed without the protection of 2 excellent CB at spurs and compact midfield in front of him.

Walker was by far Spurs' first choice in the position. 33 apps in the league vs Trippier's 12 last season. He was dropped for the last few games after telling them he wanted to leave.

He was, for my money, the best RB in the league last season. Antonio Valencia also very good but can't think of any others that come close.

Agree re: the exposure though - City have the same issue as Liverpool. Sign the best defenders in history, it doesn't matter if you play 5/6 attackers and give zero protection.

I'm no lover of Guardiola or City but I mean, why are we just blatantly ignoring facts to suit an agenda?

JPA

Lukker- wrote: »

Jayop wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers

If that list is correct then Stones and Luiz are the only two defenders to make a move for anything like that kind of money. From a quick scan of the list of top 50 players there's not a single full back that I noticed.

Interestingly there's been 16 PL clubs who've been the buyers in that top 50.

United 7
City 6 (soon to be 7 with Walker)
Chelsea 2 (shocked at that)
Liverpool 3 (soon to be 2)
Arsenal 2


Some right whoppers from the PL clubs. Veron and DiMaria at United, Stones for City, Benteke and Carroll for Liverpool, Torres and Shevchenko at Chelsea. Lot's of them great players but stunk the place out after such massive transfers.

Chelsea have only spent over £37m once and that was Torres. The Torres signing made the club re-evaluate big money signings and their approach. Chelsea have had a super effective policy since than, even including bad calls such as KdB and Lukaku. (which were more down to manager wants rather than club policy)

What about David Luiz?

Jayop

JPA wrote: »

What about David Luiz?

That Luis sale was from Chelsea to PSG.