Winter Window Transfer Tittle Tattle.

Trigger

Skylinehead wrote: »

Ornstein memes are the best thing on the internet

Poor John Cross.. he gets an awful time in them :pac:

GavRedKing

Musonda to Celtic expected to be announced this afternoon.

18 month loan deal.

pjohnson

Has the Chinese bubble burst already? A lot of the "big" stars that went there are leaving again.

- Tevez gone home
- Ramires desperate to join Inter
- Dortmund want Modeste to replace Aubameyang
- Pellè linked to West Ham to replace Diafra Sakho (who has just joined Rennes)

pjohnson

GavRedKing wrote: »

Musonda to Celtic expected to be announced this afternoon.

18 month loan deal.

You guys are a few injuries from disaster. A fairly small squad has become even smaller now this window.

Edit. And just see Ballague now saying that Dortmund want Batshuayi still.

GavRedKing

pjohnson wrote: »

You guys are a few injuries from disaster. A fairly small squad has become even smaller now this window.

Edit. And just see Ballague now saying that Dortmund want Batshuayi still.

If we sign Emerson, it will be one in one out in the senior squad with Kenedy gone to Newcastle.

Michy wont leave unless a replacement is brought in and Conte said even if another CF is brought in, it doesnt mean Michy would go and we could go forward with 3 CFs, which I think is what should have happened in the summer.

Musonda didnt play much, I think 7 or 8 games and about 350minutes total. Barkley will more than likley take his place in the front 3.

I cant see Dzeko happening at this rate, its dragged on far too long and I woudlnt touch Giroud for the figures being thrown around.

pjohnson

GavRedKing wrote: »

If we sign Emerson, it will be one in one out in the senior squad with Kenedy gone to Newcastle.

Michy wont leave unless a replacement is brought in and Conte said even if another CF is brought in, it doesnt mean Michy would go and we could go forward with 3 CFs, which I think is what should have happened in the summer.

Musonda didnt play much, I think 7 or 8 games and about 350minutes total. Barkley will more than likley take his place in the front 3.

I cant see Dzeko happening at this rate, its dragged on far too long and I woudlnt touch Giroud for the figures being thrown around.

Were the Emerson & Dzeko deals not a joint deal as in both or none?

pjohnson

Wahey. Now West Ham linked with Smolov. Always amusing at this point of a window. They just start hurling out transfer "news" and see what sticks :pac:

Trigger

pjohnson wrote: »

Has the Chinese bubble burst already? A lot of the "big" stars that went there are leaving again.

- Tevez gone home
- Ramires desperate to join Inter
- Dortmund want Modeste to replace Aubameyang
- Pellè linked to West Ham to replace Diafra Sakho (who has just joined Rennes)

They have a 3 foreigner rule and there is now a massive tax on transfer fees and wages I think..

greendom

BILD reporting that Dortmund are taking Batshauyi on loan from Chelsea to replace Aubemenyang

inforfun

astradave wrote: »

They have a 3 foreigner rule and there is now a massive tax on transfer fees and wages I think..

It is 4 on the pitch actually, 1 of them needs to be from a AFC country though.

And indeed, to stop the ridiculous and endless buying of players for way too much money, they now have to put as much as the tranfersum into a "development funds".

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/JanAageFjortoft/status/957937567449669632


https://twitter.com/johncrossmirror/status/957938993315885056

Aubameyang to Arsenal to be announced today. £180k a week. Bild and The Mirror.

rob316

That's a brilliant signing for Arsenal and a bit of bargain given the current market. £55m for a player as prolific as him

pjohnson

So far today Sturridge has been signing for both Newcastle and now West Brom!

GavRedKing

pjohnson wrote: »

Were the Emerson & Dzeko deals not a joint deal as in both or none?

Matt Law said it wasnt the case but it seems to have gone quiet.

I'd be confident of getting in a new LWB/LB before the window closes though, we've left Kenedy go but hes not made many non cup squads so its not the end of the world, Zappacosta awould be the defacto LWB in the squad at the moment even if hes right footed.

pjohnson

Smart by Pardew. He has brought Ali Gabr on loan with an option to buy.


Replacement already sorted whatever Evans does now.

Cantona's Collars

pjohnson wrote: »

So far today Sturridge has been signing for both Newcastle and now West Brom!

In fairness,the way he breaks they could send bits of him to each club.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/957977419339714560

Sky sources,

West Ham approach Everton about Schneiderlin.

pjohnson

Laporte is done. Hes said his goodbye to the club and they announced his release clause has been met.

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

Quick look at who Pep has signed in the back 4:

Bravo - 17m
Ederson - 35m

Mendy - 52m
Walker - 45m
Danilo - 26m
Stones - 47m
Laporte - 57m

Thats before you add in Mangala (42m) and Otamendi (28m) who arrived before Pep.

Total = 292m 349m :pac:

pjohnson wrote: »

Laporte is done. Hes said his goodbye to the club and they announced his release clause has been met.

Just said I'd update the above.

Nearly 350m on the defence and goalkeepers. What a time to be alive.

adaminho

GavRedKing wrote: »

Just said I'd update the above.

Nearly 350m on the defence and goalkeepers. What a time to be alive.

If a team spend that much on an attack and midfield and walked the league like city are you'd say it was money well spent. The fact is City's defence was the reason they weren't winning more so they went and sorted it. It's not as sexy as spending it on a striker but it's something they needed.

GavRedKing

adaminho wrote: »

If a team spend that much on an attack and midfield and walked the league like city are you'd say it was money well spent. The fact is City's defence was the reason they weren't winning more so they went and sorted it. It's not as sexy as spending it on a striker but it's something they needed.

Well he did also buy Sane, Gundogan, Silva and Jesus for about 130m combined.

Utopia Parkway

@premierleague 'Big Six' net spend, summer 2014 window to present (prior to Aubameyang / Laporte):

@ManCity £436.7m
@ManUtd £376.1m
@Arsenal £125.7m
@ChelseaFC £89.9m
@LFC £34.4m
@SpursOfficial £0.3m
#EPL #premierleague #bigsix #THFC #MCFC #MUFC #AFC #CFC #LFC

...

Jayop

Net spend is a load of rubbish. All it indicates is that you're good at selling your best players.

Trigger

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/958044530246332416

Lukker-

Jayop wrote: »

Net spend is a load of rubbish. All it indicates is that you're good at selling your best players.

Or you know how much money you spend, net.

Players are commodities, the more you sell the more you can buy. Well unless you are City or United

Net spend is probably the single most important factor for a club complying with FFP.

Jayop

Lukker- wrote: »

Or you know how much money you spend, net.

Players are commodities, the more you sell the more you can buy. Well unless you are City or United

Net spend is probably the single most important factor for a club complying with FFP.

I'm sure Liverpool would have a worst net spend had they been a big enough club to hold onto their star players like Coutinho and Suarez, but they'd also have won more than a league cup in the last 10 years and would most likely have a much larger budget for buying players because they'd have been in the champions League most seasons and would have more sponsorship revenue.

Net spend is a nonsense argument designed to make the fans of feeder clubs feel better about losing their star players. Nothing more.

Lukker-

Jayop wrote: »

League most seasons and would have more sponsorship revenue. designed to make the fans of feeder clubs feel better about losing their star players. Nothing more.

Or Liverpool had better players to sell. If United had players of that calibre at any stage and Barca/Real came calling there was a good chance they would leave. I mean it was serious fortunate that it didn't happen with De Gea.

Net spend is the reality every other abides by, only a City or United fan would call it nonsense.

Jayop

Lukker- wrote: »

Or Liverpool had better players to sell. If United had players of that calibre at any stage and Barca/Real came calling there was a good chance they would leave. I mean it was serious fortunate that it didn't happen with De Gea.

Net spend is the reality every other abides by, only a City or United fan would call it nonsense.

United don't sell their best players. In all my time watching United the only top player that was sold that we didn't want to lose was Ronaldo and maybe Tevez but that was a slightly different situation. United's best players retired rather than being sold. That's the reality.

From the back, Degea, Vidic, Evra, Rio, Carrick, Rooney could all have been sold for massive money in their prime. IN today's market we could get more than we paid for Pogba tomorrow. United keep their best players and only sell them when they're gone past their best. Liverpool used to do the same.

Liverpool players during the last ten years must have been so much better than United's given how much more Liverpool have won that United in that same time period....:rolleyes:

pjohnson

Awww the romance is rekindling between ye.


Spanish clubs dont faff about as much as the English clubs. Deulofeu is back in the PL, has joined Watford on loan, confirmed by Barca

fullstop

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

...

Knew it wouldn't take long before this was jumped all over...

pjohnson

I wonder will City & Watford drag it to deadline day so Sky can stay excited.

Turtwig

I really wish when past transfers are mentioned they'd be adjusted for market inflation. If you buy a house for 500k when everyone is buying similar houses on the estate for 300k that's not good value. It doesn't suddenly become good value because buying a house in the estate is now worth 1 million. At best it means it you got lucky.

No point in comparing 75 million spent on a player two years ago to 75 million spent today. Clubs e.g. city. want to make it sound like they got players cheap and at a bargain - they most certainly didn't. They paid premium for many of them.

Jayop

Turtwig wrote: »

I really wish when past transfers are mentioned they'd be adjusted for market inflation. If you buy a house for 500k when everyone is buying similar houses on the estate for 300k that's not good value. It doesn't suddenly become good value because buying a house in the estate is now worth 1 million. At best it means it you got lucky.

No point in comparing 75 million spent on a player two years ago to 75 million spent today. Clubs e.g. city. want to make it sound like they got players cheap and at a bargain - they most certainly didn't. They paid premium for many of them.

There's an element of truth in that of course, but at the same time you could argue that City were smart about when they invested big in the attacking players, and like the "net spend" argument I'm having in the other thread, players like Aguero who they bought years ago have stayed with them for years and are still 1st team players.

The spend argument for me is pretty pointless overall when you're referring to players who make up your first team week in and week out. What we should be talking about in terms of spending going back over a few seasons is the money wasted on duds at each club. That's a more telling argument.

Cantona's Collars

The latest twist in the "will Giroud go to Chelsea" rumours is that they'll offer David Luiz to Arsenal in a swap deal.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/MailSport/status/958108769824706560

"City spending fast to avoid FFP 2.0"

batistuta9

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The latest twist in the "will Giroud go to Chelsea" rumours is that they'll offer David Luiz to Arsenal in a swap deal.

Where are you seeing this?

Auba latest, right Mess. German transfer windows shut at 5 on Wednesday

https://twitter.com/bbcsport_david/status/958110718343163904

Turtwig

Someone needs to code that into a mod of football manager.

Giggsy11

Lukker- wrote: »

Or you know how much money you spend, net.

Players are commodities, the more you sell the more you can buy. Well unless you are City or United

Net spend is probably the single most important factor for a club complying with FFP.

It's not. The money you pay is anyways spread over the contract, so net pend is not the single most important factor.

Anyways net spend is important but not in context of club sold player X of 10 Million, and brought Y for 8 Million so 2 million profit. Numbers are not so simple on books. They are calculated as cost to the company/club.

Only net spend that is important is how much club is making and how much it is spending in total, not just transfers.

Also one more most important part of FFP is wages to revenue ratio which should be less than 70%. These are the important criteria, not some simple addition and subtraction for fans to brag about.

Trigger

Lukker- wrote: »

Players are commodities, the more you sell the more you can buy. Well unless you are City or United .

Coming from a Chelsea fan, the bolder part is laughable, especially when Chelsea have about 60 players out on loan.

Iused2likebusts

Money in football is fairly simple the more you have the more you can spend. You can spend it in a number of ways on wages for individual players, signing on fees, bonus incentives, having a bigger squad, transfer fees, giving you the luxury to not have to sell players. I earn 3,000 a month my friend earns 5,000 a month he can live in a nicer area than me, drive a nicer car, go on better holidays and spend more on clothes than me. I've another friend that's on 4,000 a month but luckily for him his dad has lots of money so sometimes he gives him some extra money to spend and he can get more nice things than he should be able to. Utd have 200 million more revenue than Liverpool so they can use this to not have to worry about net spend, pay the highest individual wage in the league, have the biggest overall wage bill, have the biggest squad 24 senior players, spend lots of money on transfers and not have to receive too much. City have somebody giving them a bit extra on top of there big revenue figures. Chelsea don't seem to do that anymore and are getting closer to the realities that Liverpool, arsenal and spurs face. Its simple the more revenue you have the more you can spend. The more you can spend the better you should do. However like in life money doesn't always buy you happiness and despite my friend having a higher wage than me each month. I have a nicer wife.

cj maxx

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Money in football is fairly simple the more you have the more you can spend. You can spend it in a number of ways on wages for individual players, signing on fees, bonus incentives, having a bigger squad, transfer fees, giving you the luxury to not have to sell players. I earn 3,000 a month my friend earns 5,000 a month he can live in a nicer area than me, drive a nicer car, go on better holidays and spend more on clothes than me. I've another friend that's on 4,000 a month but luckily for him his dad has lots of money so sometimes he gives him some extra money to spend and he can get more nice things than he should be able to. Utd have 200 million more revenue than Liverpool so they can use this to not have to worry about net spend, pay the highest individual wage in the league, have the biggest overall wage bill, have the biggest squad 24 senior players, spend lots of money on transfers and not have to receive too much. City have somebody giving them a bit extra on top of there big revenue figures. Chelsea don't seem to do that anymore and are getting closer to the realities that Liverpool, arsenal and spurs face. Its simple the more revenue you have the more you can spend. The more you can spend the better you should do. However like in life money doesn't always buy you happiness and despite my friend having a higher wage than me each month. I have a nicer wife.

Pic ?

inforfun

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Money in football is fairly simple the more you have the more you can spend. You can spend it in a number of ways on wages for individual players, signing on fees, bonus incentives, having a bigger squad, transfer fees, giving you the luxury to not have to sell players. I earn 3,000 a month my friend earns 5,000 a month he can live in a nicer area than me, drive a nicer car, go on better holidays and spend more on clothes than me. I've another friend that's on 4,000 a month but luckily for him his dad has lots of money so sometimes he gives him some extra money to spend and he can get more nice things than he should be able to. Utd have 200 million more revenue than Liverpool so they can use this to not have to worry about net spend, pay the highest individual wage in the league, have the biggest overall wage bill, have the biggest squad 24 senior players, spend lots of money on transfers and not have to receive too much. City have somebody giving them a bit extra on top of there big revenue figures. Chelsea don't seem to do that anymore and are getting closer to the realities that Liverpool, arsenal and spurs face. Its simple the more revenue you have the more you can spend. The more you can spend the better you should do. However like in life money doesn't always buy you happiness and despite my friend having a higher wage than me each month. I have a nicer wife.

That is all nice and well when it just ends up that Utd and Pool want the same player, he ll end up at Utd because they can pay him more.

But currently we have a situation where Man City steps in for a 20 year old defender from PEC Zwolle, who they really dont need, who has the whopping amount of 18 eredivisie matches in his career but did enough this season to attract the interest of the current no1 and 3 in The Netherlands, PSV and AZ.
They cant really take a multi-million risk with a player so both of them were stalling a bit.

In comes City, pays the couple of million the guy costs and we will never see the guy playing 1st team football for City as he will be just added to the army of Adecco for football, aka the City football group and go on loan 4 season before being sold to some championship club.

irelandrover

inforfun wrote: »

That is all nice and well when it just ends up that Utd and Pool want the same player, he ll end up at Utd because they can pay him more.

But currently we have a situation where Man City steps in for a 20 year old defender from PEC Zwolle, who they really dont need, who has the whopping amount of 18 eredivisie matches in his career but did enough this season to attract the interest of the current no1 and 3 in The Netherlands, PSV and AZ.
They cant really take a multi-million risk with a player so both of them were stalling a bit.

In comes City, pays the couple of million the guy costs and we will never see the guy playing 1st team football for City as he will be just added to the army of Adecco for football, aka the City football group and go on loan 4 season before being sold to some championship club.

The only thing left out in that story is that the player has an opinion. If he does not want to go to City because he feels he wont play then he says no. Zwolle cannot force him to move.

Liam McPoyle

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Money in football is fairly simple the more you have the more you can spend. You can spend it in a number of ways on wages for individual players, signing on fees, bonus incentives, having a bigger squad, transfer fees, giving you the luxury to not have to sell players. I earn 3,000 a month my friend earns 5,000 a month he can live in a nicer area than me, drive a nicer car, go on better holidays and spend more on clothes than me. I've another friend that's on 4,000 a month but luckily for him his dad has lots of money so sometimes he gives him some extra money to spend and he can get more nice things than he should be able to. Utd have 200 million more revenue than Liverpool so they can use this to not have to worry about net spend, pay the highest individual wage in the league, have the biggest overall wage bill, have the biggest squad 24 senior players, spend lots of money on transfers and not have to receive too much. City have somebody giving them a bit extra on top of there big revenue figures. Chelsea don't seem to do that anymore and are getting closer to the realities that Liverpool, arsenal and spurs face. Its simple the more revenue you have the more you can spend. The more you can spend the better you should do. However like in life money doesn't always buy you happiness and despite my friend having a higher wage than me each month. I have a nicer wife.

The revenues generated by City are crooked as a two bob bit. They allegedly have one of the highest revenues in world football despite the fact they cannot even sell out the stadium even when their biggest rivals are playing there.

It's creative accounting and layering of money given to the club by the owners, nothing more, nothing less.

Ardent

batistuta9 wrote: »

Where are you seeing this?

Auba latest, right Mess. German transfer windows shut at 5 on Wednesday

https://twitter.com/bbcsport_david/status/958110718343163904

Question is -

If he's not good enough for Arsenal, why on earth do Chelsea want Giroud?!

Are they just trolling Arsenal?

Trigger

“The adecco of football” :pac: I laughed anyways

Iused2likebusts

Business Cat wrote: »

The revenues generated by City are crooked as a two bob bit. They allegedly have one of the highest revenues in world football despite the fact they cannot even sell out the stadium even when their biggest rivals are playing there.

It's creative accounting and layering of money given to the club by the owners, nothing more, nothing less.

I said that somebody is giving city money and this bumps up their revenue figures so they can compete with utd. Chelsea used to have this arsenal, spurs and Liverpool don't.

duffman13

Ardent wrote: »

Question is -

If he's not good enough for Arsenal, why on earth do Chelsea want Giroud?!

Are they just trolling Arsenal?

Of all the players they are linked with this window Giroud is probably the best. Surprised at Arsenal letting him leave at all, he's a different option to Aubameyang but he really wants first team football. Even as a back up at Chelsea I reckon he'll get them a few points as a sub and hit 10+ goals before the end of the season.

Arsenal selling to Utd and now Chelsea in this window could be the reason they fail to get top 4. Asking a lot of Aubameyang to hit the ground running

inforfun

irelandrover wrote: »

The only thing left out in that story is that the player has an opinion. If he does not want to go to City because he feels he wont play then he says no. Zwolle cannot force him to move.

He is 20 years old, has 18 matches in the eredivisie, was let go by Ajax 2 years ago and now signs a contract that will set him up for life.
So...what is the opinion you want to hear?
That Pep promised him he will be involved with the first team on the same day they signed Laporte?

TitianGerm

inforfun wrote: »

He is 20 years old, has 18 matches in the eredivisie, was let go by Ajax 2 years ago and now signs a contract that will set him up for life.
So...what is the opinion you want to hear?
That Pep promised him he will be involved with the first team on the same day they signed Laporte?

He might just realised that this could be the best paying contract he will earn in his career.